Jump to content

Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why are so many people interested in this article?

[edit]

I'm sorry but I'm getting really tired of the back and forth on this particular page by people claiming to just want to help improve the article when there are so many articles on Wikipedia and even among the soap opera articles that are in far worse shape than this one and this one clearly has quite a few editors working hard to improve it already. A real and conscious effort is being made to bring this article into compliance with all Wiki policies. Yes, I was new to many policies when I started this article but I have been learning as I go and I thought this article was in pretty good shape. Much better than some other articles that no one has taken any interest in. Why is that? The interest in this article should be cited as proof of the popularity of this couple and the level of controversy surrounding the couple. I just don't understand why so many people have such a keen interest in this article when there are already several editors involved with this article several of whom are not members of either "fan base".

I'm just curious what brought the new IP address editor to this particular article if they didn't have any interest in the subject of the article. I have no desire to have this article non-compliant with any Wiki policy and I think I've conveyed that through my explanations of why I've made certain editing decisions. Even when I haven't agreed with a point, I've tried to edit the article to respect the point of view and ensure that the language used is not biased.

As for "some"/"many" etc. I don't really care - it's just a word to indicate that not ALL viewers see it the same way. I never imagined that such a minor thing would become a major issue with this article. It is a fact that not all viewers saw the scene the same way. How would you convey that if not by saying "some"?

As for the "potential supercouple" phrase used at the beginning of the article. I think it should remain for the simple fact that a respected soap magazine compared the EJ/Sami relationship to Luke and Laura who are certainly considered a supercouple by anyone's definition. This comparison, for me, makes the "potential supercouple" comment valid. Radiantbutterfly 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Every article needs to based on reliable third party sources, which is missing from the various "some/many" passages. Neutrality is only one of the core policies that needs to be applied here. Would you care to respond to the points above, rather than questioning editor's motivations? 74.1.90.194 03:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of specific words does not need 3rd party sourcing as far as I understand the policy. Statements made in the article require sourcing and those sources have been provided in this article for all statements and quotes. The word "some" simply qualifies a statement to ensure compliance with the neutrality policy and that is why this policy is the one that I have referenced.
  • I am well aware that neutrality is only one of the policies that needs to be applied here but my question was not about that but about why this article is receiving such enormous attention for slight non-compliances with policies that are blatantly disregarded in many other articles. I'm just amazed at the massive edits by new editors to the article (and to Wiki) that show complete disregard for all of the hard work that has gone into the article up until now when the majority of other articles on Wikipedia have not had to endure even a fraction of the scrutiny this article has had. I am 100% supportive of making this article completely compliant with Wikipedia policy but the constant nitpicking of every little detail is getting ridiculous and I do not believe it is helping improve the article in any significant way at this point. Oh, and as for links to Wiki policies, if you are going to edit something and vaguely say that it is because you feel it violates policy, at the very least, you should provide the name of the policy you feel was violated with a clear explanation as to why you feel it was violated.
  • As for responding point by point, I am keenly aware that many points have been made in here during the past few days but I don't have time to read through everything that has been written since Friday to comment point by point right now. I will endeavor to do that over the next couple of weeks. Radiantbutterfly 04:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I know that's why and that is precisely why I never made this article only about the couple as a couple. It was my decision to add the stuff about the controversy and I thought that in and of itself would be enough to show that I respect BOTH points of view and am trying very hard to ensure that both points of view are respected in the article. The constant edits to try and make it *more* negative don't help. Many people believe that EJ didn't rape Sami and many people believe that he did. This point is made in the article very clearly with nothing attempting to bias this particular point in any way. The controversy actually isn't so much over whether he did or didn't but more about whether or not they can be paired romantically given the incident whether it was rape or not. Radiantbutterfly 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many can believe that but that doesn't mean they have to come in here and change information that has nothing to do with it. I just find it rather interesting that not alot have acknowledged the question, or even answered it.That shows more than anything.Perfecttlovee 01:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line by line comparison part 2

[edit]

Since nobody has objected to many of the points I made days ago, I'm going to start implementing the uncontested ones. It's completely irrelevant WHY somebody decides to edit any particular article, as long as they abide by the policies and guidelines for Wikipedia articles. For the record, however, I will say that I couldn't care less about the controversy and the arguments one way or the other. 24.6.65.83 02:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And they've been reverted with the, IMO, misleading edit summary "issue is being discussed on talk page of article" by an editor who hasn't discussed them on the talk page. There have been no comments on the proposed changes in over a week, indicating the discussion is stale. Anybody care to revive it so we can move forward on improving the article rather than simply blocking ANY progress? 24.6.65.83 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, I'll respond and contest your points tonight. I apologize for not finding time sooner. I did say that I would try and find time over the next few weeks. I didn't think a few weeks of the article being left alone was that big a deal. I have responded to some of your points - I completely disagree that words such as "some" require 3rd party sourcing. Radiantbutterfly 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over the referenced WP:MOS. What section do you feel justifies the changes made today? I did not see anything addressing specifically your changes, 24.6.65.83. I also saw that it says WP:MOS is a guide, not a mandate.IrishLass0128 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try the sub-article WP:HEAD, third paragraph of the section entitled Wording, where it says "Avoid restating the subject or article title, or of an enclosing section in headings. The reader assumes you are writing about the same subject, so you need not refer to it again, thus, 'Early life' and not 'His early life'." 24.6.65.83 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the problem is you missed where Radiantbutterfly objected to all your comments and would be reviewing them. I've deferred to her because I think you are blatently wrong. You made no real comment when she addressed you. As stated, the edit wars that began when the article did not address "the controversy" were the original problem. As they stand, there has not been a problem until you made the changes. There is total disagreement with your decision and it is being discussed.IrishLass0128 20:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line by line response by Radiantbutterfly

[edit]

I have copied over the points I am responding to. I will try and figure out how to archive older talk messages to clean up this page a bit. I'm sure I'm not the only one getting sick of scrolling for pages to get to the bottom. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 24.6.65.83 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert by CelticGreen

[edit]

Another editor just reverted the article to a form that contains huge amounts of fan speculation and unsourced statements. I'd like that editor to explain why phrases like "some believe," "many viewers (not all) saw it as" and "many viewers" are preferable to a sourced document that cites third party references. 24.6.65.83 18:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Problem solved, I just remembered that there was an online talk radio show podcast (free to download) on TalkShoe where both points of view were presented and given equal representation. I will get the link to that and that should be sufficient sourcing for the use of “some”. I don’t have a problem with changing “many” to “some” because I agree that “many” can’t be proven in any substantial way. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T misrepresent my edits, make assumptions about my decision-making process or the research I've done. I have provided reasons for my edits, backed by Wikipedia policies. Most of what I see on this talk page is fans exchanging opinions (usually about the "rape") and crafting the article to incorporate those opinions, whether or not they meet Wikipedia guidelines. 24.6.65.83 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’d be perfectly happy to remove the entire section about the controversy but I know that we would have even nastier edit wars if we did. I would prefer to bring what we have into compliance and I’m hoping the reference I provide will be sufficient to end this debate. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I shouldn't have commented on your ignorance of Wikipedia and I apologize for it. I attach no stigma to ignorance, BTW - it's simply the state of being uninformed. I don't usually correct spelling outside of articles and only pointed out the above because it was causing you problems. If you hadn't asked for direction, it would have never been mentioned. 24.6.65.83 20:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I removed most of your back and forth but I just wanted to say that your attitude here leaves something to be desired. I respect your knowledge of Wiki but your sarcasm is unnecessary. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and CelticGreen, "a trip to any message board" does not meet the threshold of a Reliable Source for Wikipedia. 24.6.65.83 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there should be some way of sourcing message board content especially in an article like this because the opinions of viewers are being discussed and the best and most reliable source for viewer thoughts and opinions is soap opera message boards. I would recommend sourcing several though because it could be argued that one particular board is more biased a certain way than another. A sampling of several should provide an accurate representation. That said, I would not support message boards as a source of anything other than the fact that certain opinions do exist. Whether they are majority or minority opinions should not be stated unless there is a more concrete source available. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Message boards are generally considered questionable sources because of the lack of editorial oversight and the possibility that the board may be biased one way or another. Virtually every discussion I've seen has ruled out their use as sources for fan opinions (I can't think of one case where their use was accepted). The usual argument is that if something has enough of a fan base for opinions to be notable, then that will be reported in third party publications. 24.6.65.83 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have is that my opinion DOES exist (I hold it so I should know) but the soap opera magazines to date, refuse to acknowledge it. That doesn't mean that it isn't a fact that some people hold that opinion. I just think the reference to, as I said, multiple message boards should be enough simply to prove that an opinion exists but nothing more than that. That said, that talk radio show podcast I mentioned does provide both points of view so maybe that will be sufficient for the article. Radiantbutterfly 13:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't if the opinion exists, but whether or not it's noteworthy enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. Let's face it, everybody has opinions about lots and lots of things but many/most of them aren't encyclopedia worthy. That's why the standard for verifiability is reliable third party sources. Hopefully the podcast will meet that standard and we can move forward with the article. 24.4.252.58 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption

[edit]
  • Recently, viewers have been shown scenes depicting EJ and Sami scheming together. Also, the character of EJ is going through what some believe is a classic soap redemption and Sami is being shown to trust him a little bit more than she did before. She has not yet forgiven him for what he did, but the story is leaving it open for that to happen as indicated by former Co-Executive Producer Wyman.<ref>Soap Opera Digest, ''"New Twist in Days's Most Controversial Tale"'', week of July 17 2007.</ref>
  • Recently, viewers have been shown scenes depicting EJ and Sami scheming together. The Suds Report: May 28, 2007 wonders if NBC is redeeming EJ.<ref name="Suds">{{cite web | author= | title=The Suds Report: May 28, 2007 | work=Sympatico MSN | url=http://entertainment1.sympatico.msn.ca/The+Suds+Report+May+28+2007/TV_Guide/Soaps/boldAndBeautiful/Articles/070528_news_nelson.htm?isfa=1 | accessdate=2007-06-30}}</ref> Sami is being shown to trust him a little bit more than she did before although she has not yet forgiven him for what he did. The story is leaving it open for that to happen as indicated by former Co-Executive Producer Wyman.<ref>Soap Opera Digest, ''"New Twist in Days's Most Controversial Tale"'', week of July 17 2007.</ref>

I contend the second is the better of the two because it provides a firm reference for the "redemption" rather than a vague "some believe," doesn't rely on the phrase "classic soap opera redemption," and doesn't start two consecutive sentences with a single word/comma combo that is stilted and awkward. 24.6.65.83 03:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects in a day or so, it will be implemented. 24.6.65.83 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object. Radiantbutterfly's English sounded so much better.CelticGreen 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to address the uncited "some believe" language? That is completely against Wikipedia policies of Original research and Verifiability and still has not been addressed after 11 days. Pairadox 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santo/Colleen comparison

[edit]
Resolved

*Their story is being told in a way some believe paralell EJ and Sami's story of last summer.

  • nothing

Here again we have a "some believe" claim without any sources to back it up, thus crossing over into Original Research. The fact that the characters are being portrayed by the same actors (mentioned in the previous sentence) is sufficient information for the reader to draw their own conclusions. "Last summer" is a relative term that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, the preferred form being "summer of XXXX." 24.6.65.83 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I propose: “Their story is being told in a way that has been depicted on the show as paralleling the lives of EJ and Sami and has prompted dialogue on the show suggesting that EJ and Sami are Santo and Colleen reincarnated.”
That works as well; it references the show itself as a source. Again, if nobody else comments in a day or so we'll change it to your version. 24.6.65.83 00:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable speech

[edit]
  • This was a notable speech in this pairing's history because many viewers (not all) saw it as the first time a suitor of Sami's had expressed this level of acceptance of her true character and because it was the first time EJ revealed to Sami that he had feelings for her that extended further than just physical attraction.
  • nothing

Where to begin? No citations to back up the claim it's notable, I guess. Then we get to the weasel words that are so weaselly they even have a parenthetical qualifier. Contentious does not equal notable. It's dependent on Original research because it requires an editors judgment of what exactly is "this level of acceptance." 24.6.65.83 03:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you go back through there is several discussions about this. Yes, it is notable to some viewers and the part you took out was added to AGAIN avoid edit wars. It was put one way and reversed several times. Until the "notable" and beyond were added it was repeatedly edited by the other fan base. It is your opinion it is not and it is important to note that it was EJ's first reveal of his feelings since that is the "Romantic moments" section. I have to wonder if you even watch the show.CelticGreen 14:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but "Notable to some viewers" is not a criteria for inclusion. If the article is going to claim that it is notable, there needs to be a third party citation showing that. 24.6.65.83 19:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose: “This was a notable speech in this pairing’s history because it embodies the sentiment of acceptance that later dialogue confirmed was Sami’s primary reason for not killing EJ when she had the chance.” Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't address the claim of "notable speech" not being referenced. 24.6.65.83 01:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you are talking about "romantic moments" you cross into an area of personal preference. What some find romantic, not all do. When the wording was differnt there were multiple changes and edit wars. The addition of the wording as is has eliminated this warring.CelticGreen 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again the issue of citations for "notable speech" have not been met. Would you care to address them, rather than citing personal preference and pandering to edit warriors instead of adhering to guidelines? Pairadox 02:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speech was notable in the way that it was presented and viewer reaction. While you seem to have an obvious problem with "opinion" it is yours that seems to be saying it is not notable. Three editors have now agreed it was notible. Stopping and not contributing to edit wars is also part of the guide. By leaving the text as is, there will be no further edit warring on that particular line. This was a compromise reached a while back to include the wording as is.IrishLass0128 13:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth request; please provide a citation that shows this has been called a "notable speech" and why by reliable third-party sources, otherwise it does not comply with Wikipedia policy on Verifiability and Original research. Pairadox 19:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In YOUR OPINIONL Seriously, you need to read what is written. Up until the addition of this wording the bullet point was changed and vandalized. Give ot a rest and leave it as is where there has been no edit wars.CelticGreen 03:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]
  • Even with this seeming attempt to clarify the issue, an elaboration of the scene itself through flashbacks is likely the only thing that will convince many viewers to change their minds one way or another about what happened.
  • nothing

More weasel words and original research. It draws conclusions about 1) the motivations of the show's creative team, and 2) what will "likely" change viewers minds. 24.6.65.83 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not agree that this comments on the motivations of the show’s creative team in any way only on what viewers would need to gain closure on the whole issue but I agree that this is my opinion and I do not object if the consensus is to remove it. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it will come out unless somebody else offers up a better suggestion. 24.6.65.83 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue is not resolved. Leave it as is. There's no reason for it to come out it is worded well and works within the article. It is fact that there is controversy with this couple and unless you are reading the magazines weekly, you would not know this. Even the editor of SOD agrees that there is a great deal of controversy with this couple. CelticGreen 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> You do not own the article, and you do not get to dictate what stays and what goes. If it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines, then it needs to go. Please address the article in light of these guidelines. Pairadox 02:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do believe the <sigh> is out of order. No one said they owned the article and from what I've seen you are constantly very nasty to CelticGreen and that <sigh> is doing it again. If you don't like someone's response, why not just ignore it? Why the need to behave in such a manner and attack other editors? Is it your mentioned inability to get over her original reverts of your edits? I see you constantly attacking CelticGreen and this has been addressed to you more than once. The controversy surrounding this couple makes the magazines weekly and therefore is fact and has been addressed repeatedly in publications.IrishLass0128 14:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third request:The statement is still not in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Please provide citations that state 1) "this" was an attempt to clarify the "issue", and 2) an elaboration of the scene is likely to be the only thing that changes viewers minds. Pairadox 19:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A portrayer's thoughts

[edit]
Resolved

*Actor James Scott, portrayer of EJ, was interviewed by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide as to the subject of the highly debated EJ and Sami storyline, even referring to it as rape himself, though also commenting on how he truly believes that EJ is in love with Sami:

  • Actor James Scott, portrayer of EJ, was interviewed by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide about the highly debated EJ and Sami storyline. He referred to it as rape, though also commenting on how he truly believes that EJ is in love with Sami:

The first is a run-on sentence. "As to the subject of" is awkward phrasing and overly verbose when "about" will do. "Even referring to it" implies that this is an extreme statement, while "he referred to it" is more neutral wording. 24.6.65.83 03:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate the kind comments about my writing style by CelticGreen but I actually didn’t write this paragraph and I agree with IP address (it would be a lot easier if you registered a username by the way) that the original was messy. I would propose only a slight further change:
I like your wording even better. 24.6.65.83 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Days former Co-Executive Producer

[edit]
  • Days former Co-Executive Producer addresses EJ and Sami controversy
  • Days former Co-Executive Producer

Simple Manual of Style edit. Basically, there is no need to repeat the name of the article or the superheader in a subheader. The entire article is about EJ and Sami, the entire section is about the controversy, so the MOS says to leave them out. 24.6.65.83 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We tried it that way and it got changed to several nasty things including "proves it was rape" and "talks about the rape" and other variations. The wording was settled on to avoid editing wars. Flyer22, I'm sure, remembers all the hassle we had getting that to appease two sides of a highly volital group.CelticGreen 13:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it simple and in line with the MOS would discourage the sort of additions you mention. Neither side should be offering their POV in headers. (Not saying the above does, just that it's not according to the MOS.) 24.6.65.83 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another couple of days for further comment... 24.6.65.83 00:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the wording was simple, there was multiple edit warrings and changes that included the word "rape" and caused the article to be non-neutral. Adding the 5 additional words has eliminated the edit warring that previously took place.CelticGreen 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you thought about simply adhering to the guidelines, which would eliminate the need for the redundant, wordy, and out-of-guideline header? Pandering to other editors POV edits is not the way to improve the article. Pairadox 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke and Laura comparison

[edit]
  • Some viewers who do believe that EJ raped Sami, and magazines, such as Soap Opera Weekly (editorial in magazine week of June 11, 2007), are comparing EJ and Sami to Luke and Laura from General Hospital (see section below, Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy). Luke and Laura became a supercouple in part due to a reworking of the storyline as a "seduction", even though it is currently an undisputed fact that Luke raped Laura. Whether the original intent of the the scene between EJ and Sami on December 29 2006 is ever confirmed by Days of our Lives executives or writers, to be compared to such a supercouple as Luke and Laura arguably shows the potential for EJ and Sami to become a Days of our Lives supercouple, in spite of the controversy surrounding the pairing.
  • nothing

The entire section looks to be an argument that EJ and Sami have the potential to become a supercouple. A comparison in Soap Opera Weekly is being used as evidence to support the theory, not as a source for the theory. I personally don't care one way or the other if they are, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox to present evidence for an unpublished theory. As WP:OR says, "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." In this case, the source does not say that EJ and Sami are a potential supercouple. That appears to be a conclusion of the Wikipedia editors. 24.6.65.83 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with you here and I would like to hear a few other editors weigh in on this one. The comparison was made to a supercouple so I think the conclusion is valid. Why would the article compare apples and oranges? Comparing EJ and Sami to Luke and Laura put them on the same level and that level in soap opera circles is “supercouple”. Again, I’d like to see a few more thoughts on this from other editors. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Resolved

*Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy

  • Soap Opera Weekly opinion column

Again, another WP:MOS edit. The entire section is about the controversy, so repeating it in the subheader is not necessary. 24.6.65.83 04:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one I'm implementing now. It's such a silly thing to put off any longer. 24.6.65.83 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? 24.6.65.83 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Please explain why guidelines should be ignored in this case. Be explicit, and understand that pandering to others POV edits is not a good reason. Only be adhering to guidelines is this likely to stay NPOV. Pairadox 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOW column agreement

[edit]
  • Some viewers agree with the opinion presented by the author of the referenced Soap Opera Weekly column, but others do not agree that the controversial scenes are being glossed over by the soap operas in question. As yet, no publication has addressed this opposing point of view or the issue that in all 3 cases quoted in the column, the male character is going through or has gone through a character redemption. This is of no consequence to some, but is a key point for others.
  • nothing

I think the second sentence sums up my objections to this when it says "no publication has addressed this." This is the very definition of WP:OR; "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." 24.6.65.83 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. 24.6.65.83 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details on popularity

[edit]
  • Despite the heated debate circling the EJ and Sami pairing, the relationship between the two has been recognized as a top couple in viewing multiple times by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide.<ref name="Suds" /> And with the couple's growing popularity, the two have proved formidable to rival couple, Lucas and Sami.
  • EJ and Sami have been recognized as a "top couple to watch by the Suds Report.<ref name="Suds" />

(Note: I've shortened the ref in the first sample)
"Despite the heated debate" is a mitigating factor introduced by Wiki editors; it implies that this can or should detract from their popularity. Although there are claims of "multiple" recognitions, only one ref is provided. The second sentence in the first paragraph is another attempt to promote an EJ/Sami pairing, claiming some "formidable" aspect that is not supported by citations. Again, I don't care one way or the other about the rivalry; I'm after an article that conforms to guidelines. The second sample is clear, straitforward and makes no claims that can't be verified. Any additional citations can, of course, be added as they are found. 24.6.65.83 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’m confused by this one, it appears that you removed 3 separate references and then claimed that there was only one reference. The second sentence does not promote an EJ and Sami pairing in any way, in my opinion. It simply states that they are a rival to Lucas and Sami. I would not object to the removal of the word “formidable” as I can see how it might be considered non-compliant with Wiki policy. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the version that was in place before my first edit[1] you'll see that although Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide are mentioned, there's no actual reference to those viewer polls and thus no way to verify them. The only actual reference provided is to the Suds Report. I'm sure the others exist, but until there are actual citations the claim should be trimmed to what can be verified. Could you provide a draft for the second half? Simply removing "formidable" doesn't make sense. 24.6.65.83 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on a revision to the wording. In addition, there is a website called "vote the soaps" where EJ and Sami frequently poll as "most wanted couple" and often poll neck in neck with their rival couple for favourite couple or something like that. Would that not be a good reference to demonstrate their popularity as well and possibly even justify the use of "formidable"? I think the site is www.votethesoaps.com. Radiantbutterfly 13:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll respond to this. Not about the formidable part though. The reason that statement was cited as Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide...is because that source comes from a website (reliable one, of course) which is a combination of all three, not necessarily because EJ and Sami were cited as a top couple to view by all three individually. Also, any one of those titles are more well-known than simply stating the Suds Report, of course. I don't object to the changing of the mention of the three of them in that way. And, guys, I've been very busy with other work, both on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia. I still haven't further fixed up the Supercouple article again, as you all might have noticed, but I will soon. Either way, of course, it's good to see you all compromising and coming to a consensus about certain topics and or issues within this article as Wikipedia:consensus points out. Talk with you all later. Flyer22 09:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RadiantB, it would be easier to show that EJ and Sami have polled as high or higher than "their rival couple" a few times than to prove they are "formidable," which is a subjective term. Throw up some specific citations to those polls, taken months apart if possible (to show their staying power), and the point is made. What we have to avoid is leading the reader into a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources. I haven't looked at it, but the website you mention sounds like it should provide the info you seek.
Flyer, thanks for the clarification about the combined website; again, a citation from it would eliminate the objections to it's inclusion in the article text. I haven't been following the Supercouple article so you could gut the thing and I wouldn't notice. ;) If this discussion had started with calm talk and seeking consensus rather than gross accusations of vandalism and bad faith we could have gotten to this point much sooner and easier. 24.4.252.58 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I'm not sure about is whether or not vote the soaps keeps an archive of past polls. I hope so and I will look into that. Assuming they do, this is my proposed new wording:
"As questioned by the Soap Opera Weekly article referenced above, it is not clear whether or not a majority of viewers would accept EJ and Sami as a romantic pair, however, the relationship between the two has been recognized as a top couple in viewing by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide.<ref name="Suds" /> and as a "most wanted couple" on the website Vote the Soaps (www.votethesoaps.com) making EJ and Sami a legitimate rival to couple, Lucas and Sami." Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's how I see it. IP XXXX is "still not over it" when it comes to the original reverts. This is still fact as they continues to mention it. They have failed to understand why the original edits were considered "vandalism" because they were unware of the articles history of people deleting mass sections, vandalising, completely deleting, and adding unnecessary content. When radical changes are made as were by IP XXXX it is easy to see why people would be suspicious in this particular article. At this point, however, RadiantButterfly and Flyer22 have both said they need more time to respond to the line by line issues yet IP XXXX keeps claiming resolution and changing the article. There is no resolution or majority consenses. Simple math shows it is still either 2 to 1 or 1 to 1. At this time claiming "resolved" is false. The issues are still in need of discussion and IP XXXX needs to "get over it" (their words, not mine) and understand the situation before making edits because their feelings are hurt. When someone claims they "aren't over it" it can only be based on feelings. More time is needed before "resolve" can be claimed as two editors have asked for more time on many points.CelticGreen 11:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Calm talk"

[edit]

As for the "calm talk" comment, you walked in at a bad time but you do seem sincere in wanting to help with this article and I like many of your contributions (many of your comments to Celtic Green have been rude and sarcastic though and that didn't help either). This article has been the target of many attacks by angry fans who don't agree with the point of view that what happened between the characters wasn't rape. You came in and appeared to be making massive changes and after the weeks of debate and arguments with people not as reasonable as you seem to be, it was felt that we were in for another rough road. I am still baffled at the amount of attention and interest there is in this article but for now, it appears that we have good editors working towards making this article better and I know that's all I want. I'm sorry you felt this article was so poor but we really have worked hard on the neutrality part of it and not much else because until now, most of the editors who have "contributed" have been making changes that affect the neutrality of the article. I have wanted to work on other aspects but the neutrality crap kept coming back over and over. I'm thrilled to be getting away from that now! Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? It really pisses me off when an editor starts out by reverting my edits, calling them "vandalism" and assuming that I should "try reading through this page," all of which are major assumptions of bad faith on her part. I asked for an explanation for her revert at the very beginning and was attacked for it. Sarcasm is a defense mechanism, especially when I know that the other person is wrong. I hope you notice that I apologized (which was NEVER acknowledged) but have continued to face repeated attacks about my motives, my knowledge and my experience. This is not the EJ and Sami fan page (or the LUMI one, for that matter) and the attempts to shut out new editors to the article are just offensive (and against policy). Yeah, I'm still not over it, and won't be until I see some acknowlegement that CelticGreen and IrishLass have learned from this and changed their ways. 69.239.249.254 00:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you admittedly hide behind an IP so you can edit to your hearts content and not be banned for editor bashing and breaking of the rules. You said that yourself on one of you many talk pages. If you had bothered to see the history of this article you would understand. Instead you assume that the reverts were because of an assumption of bad faith. You never apologized. NEVER and don't pretend you did. You have remained hostile and snarky and assumed too much. You know the old saying about assuming. "Learned from this" not from you that's for sure. I don't assume anything. I don't, what is it, hide behind sarcasm. Sarcasm implies I don't mean what I say. Believe me, I mean what I say. As for you being over it, I'm not over your "changes" that did border on vandalism and your personal attacks. Obviously other people have noticed your behaviour and you are in no position to tell people what they are thinking and that you are right and they are wrong. I'm not a child and you are not my teacher. Therefore, I won't be "learning" anything from you as you are no teacher.CelticGreen 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please show me where I wrote anything about hiding to avoid consequences. You won't be able to, and my efforts to acquire a username and the full disclosure on my current talk page of previous IP edits bely your claim.
  2. IPs are banned all the time, so attempting to evade a ban in such a way wouldn't work anyway.
  3. I have already provided evidence of your assumptions of bad faith, starting with your claim of vandalism.
  4. I don't have to pretend I apologized. I did apologize, as shown here.
  5. Fyodor Dostoyevsky defined sarcasm as "the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded."[2]
  6. There is no such thing as borderline vandalism, but your repeated claims to the contrary (even after such claims have been repudiated by Flyer and RadiantButterfly) are borderline personal attacks. Please stop. Pairadox 03:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. With all your IPs it would be impossible to find it again.CelticGreen 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Get over it!! There were reasons to believe your edits were vandalism. Look at the history of the article and you might ACTUALLY understand.CelticGreen 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. No, you did NOT apologize. Actions speak louder than words and your constant continual harrassment is proof.CelticGreen 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. You can define sarcasm however YOU want but I know it wasn't sarcasm.
5. Again, in your opinion. You stop first. I've asked you to leave my talk page alone and leave me alone yet you continually refuse. You don't see anything other than your own point and no one elses. You accuse without foundation. You need to understand what this page has gone through for you to understand anything about this argument.CelticGreen 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reverting of her replies to you is the behaviour that I find interesting. Why is it she is not allowed to reply to your comments? What is there "interupting" them as you seem to dictate. You asked, she answered. That's not interupting, that's common courtesy. You seem to be the one "telling" her she can't answer your statements to her. I would think that was a personal attack.IrishLass0128 15:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her comments have not been removed or changed in any way. Please review talk page guidelines, specifically the parts about editing other people's comments. Placing her comments in the midst of mine alters the formatting and numbering and removes my sig from my comments. Pairadox 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance we could let this go and move forward? There is bad feeling on both sides here obviously and I can understand why because I admit my own frustration at new editors helping with this article due to some bad experiences but I really do think 'Pairadox' (glad you registered a username!) is trying to help and just caught us at a bad time with his/her initial edits. 'Pairadox' has indicated a willingness to work together with us to address the things we want the article to address but also keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia policies. (I have made an edit above to perhaps help a bit with the flow of the earlier comments, I hope that's ok) Radiantbutterfly 16:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me, RadiantB (you mind if I call you that?); it preserves the flow of the dialogue and yet allows CelticGreen to respond point-by-point. I registered an account as soon as I realized that my ISP was changing my IP address willy-nilly. I'm glad that you can see my sincere desire to improve the article within guidelines and without bias. Pairadox 19:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But when I respond point by point you accuse me of all sorts of things. Such a double standard. I replied to you and only in your opinion did I "interupt" you. So are your eyes brown??? Your bias oozes all over this article and talk page. There are hundreds of other articles that need improvement yet you behave this way in this article and toward other editors. I have a talk page and nowhere on it does is show you apologizing. Such a liar.CelticGreen 03:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EJ Wells article

[edit]
  • It seems that an editor, User:Zelse81, has redirected the EJ Wells article (the one about this fictional character, of course), which also caused its deletion.

I will have to take care of this matter to ensure that the EJ Wells article about this fictional character is restored. Flyer22 13:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess! It looks like the real culprit is User:Loreleishannon and User:Zelse81 only compounded the error. Anyway, the EJ Wells article has been restored. 24.6.209.4 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's great, of course, that the EJ Wells article has been restored. If you are the one who took care of this matter while I was away from Wikipedia for a few hours, then thank you. And, yes, I saw a message that User:Zelse81 left for User:Loreleishannon, and User:Zelse81 admitted to redirecting the EJ Wells article to the singer also named EJ Wells (though his name is spelled with perioids in between his initials), although when I clicked on the EJ Wells article in that fork that was there, it didn't go to any article. Anyway, glad that that matter is taken care of. Flyer22 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's great that you caught that and managed to restore it. I wish I had time to keep a close eye on a few articles on here but I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with this one! :) Radiantbutterfly 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some

[edit]

Simple answer ~ some, not all. Some viewers see what happened between this couple as romantic, others do not. Some see what happened as rape, some do not. There is no conseses on this couple's history therefore the word "some" has been placed in the article to appease people who do not think this pair is a couple or romantic or that the sex was rape.IrishLass0128 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AWW. Pairadox 18:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: It's not that some [people] see what happened between EJ and Sami on the night that is questioned as rape as romantic (I know that the viewers here of the show, from whichever fan-base or no fan-base of the show, that I've talked to don't/didn't see it as romantic), it's that some [people] don't see it as rape. Anyway, I understand your point on this matter, IrishLass, of course. I was only clarifying. However, Pairadox makes strong arguments on the matter of Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 18:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Flyer22 ~ While she may make a strong argument for an article about a willow tree, I do not feel she has an understanding of this particular couple/issue. There are several as I count editors that disagree with her edits, yet she continues to make them based on her belief of the motives behind the original reverts, as she has indicated she has not "gotten over" those reverts. And while she has presented no other editor who agrees with her, she continues to make changes. As someone who watches soap operas, you and I can hopefully agree that not everyone agrees what is good and bad on a soap and "all" viewers rarely, if ever, agree on the likability of a couple. Regardless of popularity, there will be SOME viewers out there who disagree no matter who the couple. That said, AGAIN, the word SOME in this particular article is appropriate. And I've read WP:AWW that says its a GUIDE, not a mandatory formatting rule. That's where the perverbial wiggle room in this article comes in. It also states that using SOME is acceptable and will not be removed. First paragraph example of the city of Montreal. A pronouncement that Montreal is the best city in the world will get removed; an innocuous note that some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world may not.IrishLass0128 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting rather frustrated by the constant reverting to unsourced and tag-free versions. Simply because one editor declares an issue has been resolved does not mean that it is, especially when the truth is apparent in the edits and on the talk page. What part of WP:V is unclear or merely a guideline? I don't care what some viewers believe or don't believe; I want to see citations that state this is what they believe or don't believe. Even if you ignore the "guidelines" about weasel words, Verifiablity is NOT a guideline, it is a policy that needs to be followed. Pairadox 20:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just because ONE EDITOR says it's wrong, doesn't mean it is.CelticGreen 00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment:Some viewers

[edit]

Whether or not repeated use of "some viewers" (and variations), without attribution, violates Verifiability policy and Avoiding Weasel Words guidelines. 04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that each time "some viewers" are alleged to have a point of view, Wikipedia should cite an authoritative source for this claim. This is a claim about real-life people viewing the show and having opinions, not a claim about the show or the characters. The "citation needed" tags are correctly deployed, in my opinion. VisitorTalk 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So why aren't letters printed in the "viewers voice" columns of Soap Opera Digest not counted? There have been countless letters of varying opinion on both sides. How does that NOT equal "some viewers"? IrishLass0128 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

74.113.157.178

[edit]

I forgot to login earlier - in case anyone is wondering, 74.113.157.178 is me. Radiantbutterfly 12:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was you?! I apologize for changing your edits where, in the Controversy section, you put the popularity sub-sections first. Flyer22 13:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of popularity

[edit]

Given that it has now been confirmed through recent scenes (Sami kissing EJ) and spoilers that Lucas and Sami are breaking up (Sami will ask for an annulment) that the show will be giving EJ & Sami a chance, I think the popularity of the couple is actually more significant than the controversy now. The show has obviously acknowledged that they believe the popularity of the couple is enough to overcome the controversy. This is why I swapped the 2 sections within the Cultural Impact section. Radiantbutterfly 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must state, though, that I feel that the controversy of this couple is still more significant, as, in a way, it is also what gave them bigger cultural impact than what they would have had at this time without that controversy. But I'm not truly against you swapping those two sections around. Flyer22 14:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy of the couple is what gave them bigger cultural impact but I think it is their popularity that created the controversy. I did not want to push for this before the show changed direction on the pairing because I figured that would create more headaches with the article but my feeling is that if everyone hated the pairing, the show would not have even considered putting them back together and so the controversy really wouldn't have existed. The controversy is primarily over whether or not the pairing is "acceptable" and since it does appear based on recent scenes and spoilers that the show is going to give them another chance, I think that the popularity has won out over the controversy...for now anyway. It's a soap so everything could change tomorrow depending on the writer's whim and what the producers feel is the best direction for the show. Radiantbutterfly 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of "controversy" when can we get that stupid "attribution needed" removed? Explain to me WHY so I can understand it, WHY can't thousands of opinion and rebuttle letters addressed multiple times in SOW and SOD not count as sourcing on the fact that there is a division in what some believe and what others do? SOW has addressed it. TotalTVOnline.com has addressed it. Major publications acknowledge not everyone believes what happened December 29th is cut and dry. Why are those stupid "notations" still there and how can we fix it? I asked before but the question has never been answered. IrishLass0128 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because all letters prove is that certain individuals believe one thing or another - it can't speak for large numbers of people. We have no idea if those letters are representative of a larger population, if they are isolated opinions, anything. All we know about is the individual who wrote that particular letter. Anything else is speculation on the part of Wikipedia editors. Pairadox 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some can be as few as three. That's the point of what the passage says "some people" saw it one way, other another way. So if more than three people saw it one way "some" is justified. And it was specifically said that they receive many, many letters by the editor. More for EJami than for LUMI. And you didn't answer the question asked. And in case it wasn't clear ~ I was asking Flyer22 the question. NOT YOU. And it's not for any other reason than I've heard and don't accept your reasons. I want Flyer's opinion on the subject. You've repeated yourself enough, I get it. What I want is another opinion.IrishLass0128 19:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If three people saw it that way, then undue weight is being given to their opinions. Cite the editors of the publications, not the letters, and cite them properly. Finally, you don't get to dictate who posts to this talk page. (Or your own, for that matter.) If you want a personal message from Flyer, send him/her an email. Pairadox 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect here, saying "some" people saw something a certain way does not give any weight whatsoever to the statement. Saying "a majority" or "most" or "many" gives undue weight. Saying "some" is actually very accurate. Radiantbutterfly 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've not told anyone named Pairadox to not post on my page, you have me confused with someone else. Sorry if you're offended by the phrasing of the question but it was directed at Flyer22 because I know your answer and you're just repeating yourself. I did not "dictate" anything, that seems to be your thing. You're dictating who can edit this article and have scared off editors from doing so. I just asked a question looking for a NEW answer. You've answered the question ad nauseum repeating the same answer. Of course, I understand why people who not want to deal with you. I've been warned by others, I should have listening. "Some" was just a point, you shouldn't take things so seriously. But, fine, I'll not ask any more questions or bother with this article again. You win. Congratulations.IrishLass0128 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice parsing of the language, but it's clear from this deleted section of your talk page that you did tell me to "go away" (even if it was directed at an IP address I used before registering for an account, I made clear it was the same person). It's not about winning, it's about creating the best article possible. Pairadox 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, whatever. As I repeatedly said, you are not someone who is pleasant to deal with and you can have this page. I didn't lie, or parse the language (whatever thar means), if you were the IP I didn't know when I wrote what I wrote. I did a control F to find your name. You showed up once, and I did check the deleted content. Have the page, you've not improved it. Butterfly and Flyer improved it, you just have been hassling other editors who want to improve it but don't meet with your idea of standards. No problem, you win, have fun. This article doesn't mean that much to me to deal with the likes of you. Congrats again, you win. IrishLass0128 01:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped the popularity and controversy sections again because I feel the popularity really is the more important of the 2 sections in this article. Also, I have added the reference to EJ and Sami winning Best Couple in SOD's Hot Off The Net poll. Radiantbutterfly 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IrishLass0128, as for the sourcing of this article, I don't have much different to "say" than Pairadox on that matter. I know that you wanted to "hear" something that was different on that front, but, really...it's as Pairadox states on that matter. I don't, however, feel that you should stop working on this article, of course. It's best if you continue to work on this article with us. Flyer22 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Flyer22 I guess I just don't understand, and this is not just something that would apply here, why a printed editorial which is titled "It's just my opinion" (or something very close to that) that is clearly only one person's opinion that gets published because she's a columnist counts, but rebuttal letters that are a sampling of a portion of letters received, do not count. Do you see my confusion? Both are published items, but only the paid columnists opinion counts. Why is that? Is that a better way a phrasing the question?IrishLass0128 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tango1.jpg

[edit]

Image:Tango1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bye, bye Bot, we got it covered. Go away now! IrishLass0128 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sami's last name

[edit]

I just wanted to know if her name could be changed back just to Samantha "Sami" Brady and remove Roberts now that she is divorced.Perfecttlovee 20:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering for this article it never should have been changed, I fixed it. IrishLass0128 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:EJ_Wells_and_Samantha_Brady/Archive_2&oldid=178775591"