Talk:Mark Bunker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Scientology (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Television (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Self published sources[edit]

@Grayfell:, The web site tonyortega.org is self published. WP:SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The bold is in the original. There are no exceptions listed. Why have reverted to include this source? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are exceptions listed: the very next paragraph after SPS is WP:ABOUTSELF. This is an interview with Bunker being used to support a non-controversial, minor, non-promotional detail of Bunker's project which is entirely relevant. I see no problem here. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I get it that you see no problem. The web page is self published and the word "insignificant" does not appear in the policy. If the crowd sourcing supports the statement, why is the second source needed? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I never said anything about "insignificant". The source is usable under ABOUTSELF. Having a redundant source is desirable when the other is a rolling-post. Trying to remove a link on a technicality seems like WP:BURO. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Do not characterize my motives, and I will not characterize yours. I understand Never to mean never, as a rule that applies to all cases, without fudge room. It seems that the authors of the policy intended to preclude the possibility that I might publish an "interview" with Hillary Clinton on my personal web page, and present that as a source for Wikipedia. Self published is self published. This is a third-party source about a living person, claiming to have the information direct from the living person. According to WP policy, this has no more credibility than a gossip columnist's statements about his whispered conversation with Hollywood star. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
One of the requirements of ABOUTSELF is that there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. I do not see any reasonable doubt that Tony Ortega (journalist) interviewed Mark Bunker. Both are otherwise relatively obscure journalists with a shared history of covering Scientology. There is no whispering involved. Here's how Bunker's own site describes it: There is no better source for news about Scientology than Tony Ortega's blog... followed by more gushing.[1] Casting doubt on its authenticity seems like a stretch which overlooks all relevant context. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but WP:ABOUTSELF refers to self-published sources about the self, not to self-published sources about other people. I do not object to the Bunker's own publications about himself. I object to exactly what is prohibited: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people." Bunker is the living person. Ortega is the person publishing on tonyortega.org, hence tonyortega.org is a "third-party source". And tonyortega.org is self-published, with no peer or editorial review. And that is what is not permitted. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
It's an interview by a journalist being quoted to fill-in and support a minor, non-controversial detail. The spirit of these policies is being honored, and even the letter is at worst, debatable. You have not put forth a valid reason other than WP:BURO to objection to the source. Please stop wasting time on this. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
That situation is covered and nixed by the rule above: "...even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." This is clearly a violation of the rules, not an edge case. This is smack in the middle of don't-go-there land, already considered and rejected by dozens of other editors in years past when they wrote the policies. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Grayfell:, I have posted the question to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TonyOrtega.org.