Talk:The Queen of Versailles

sources

WP:RS Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist.

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

WP:BLP Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person

Collect (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a great source, it's partly an opinion piece but there are journalistic facts included: Joe Nocera piece in NYT, 2012-06-21 Mathew5000 (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That source is hardly favourable to the producer - scenes presented out of sequence, and eliding facts is not exactly the hallmark of a great "documentary" at all. Collect (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, I never said it's a great source for the producer of the documentary! Mathew5000 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we just be clear firstly that court judgements are valuable sources for BLP? Obviously court transcripots are not as anyone may allege anything in court but the judgement is about as relaible and trusted source as you can get.

Secondly can we also be clear that in a page about a documentary, important sections of that documentary are valid sources.

Thirdly can we agree that the transcript of a documentary woudl be less a valid source than the actual video.

Lastly if online transcripts are to be insisted upon for all video (including onlein news agency video??), then surely it applies to all books and newspapers that may not be available online, or are behind a paywall. That would be ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.146.240 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Books are generally considered to already be in an "Archived" form. A film without a verifiable version to cross-check is not a valid source per WP:V and WP:RS and where it makes a contentious claim, is absolutely not usable per WP:BLP. Films are edited - and thus determining actual context of a quote is a major issue in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Admissions

Having watched the film the two admisisons mentioned did strike me as very noteworthy. However I can see the first one (covert buying back of ones own bad debt) may be more appropriate in BLP than here. However the second one, Siegel's claim to have swung a US presedential election, is most certainly noteworthy in this article. Its quite astonishing. Had he made the claim less seriously and not repeated it and gone into detail and substantiated it, perhaps it would not be noteworthly here. However he did and it is perhaps the most remarkable 'plotline' of the documentary 2.30.146.240 (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC).

The point about the 2000 election takes up maybe 15 seconds of screen time, and then is never referred to again. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussions

This article and the closely-related article David A. Siegel are being discussed at the BLP noticeboard and the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Mathew5000 (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Postscript section dispute

There seems to be a disagreement about content surrounding the Postscript section. What seems to be the problem? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

not sure, I posted what is up right now under Postscript (except the photo of the house) and 68.60.66.69 took it upon himself to replace it completely without explanation or proper sourcing/verifications. Needless to say, I undid his undoing :-)Darklighter69 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at what he replaced my posts with...note that NONE of it is verified, nor does it employ neutral language...seems biased even...

"Ten years after breaking ground in 2004, the Versailles house remains unfinished, but contrary to what the film viewers would think, construction resumed in 2013 and the Siegels say they will live in the house once it's completed in 2016. Because the Siegels's children are older now, modifications to the original plan are being made including turning playrooms into a teenager’s cave with a second movie theater and a yoga studio. Two of the real estate agents (Mike Derenthal and Ronda Shively) who listed Versailles on their web site said in June 2014 that the Versailles house is no longer actively on the market, although both say that anything is for sale if the price is right."

"Contrary to what the film viewers would think..." speculative, assumes that he knows that viewers would think, certainly not neutral. "Construction resumed in 2013..." really? what evidence is there of that? No source, nothing verified. "They will live in the house once it is completed in 2016" again, where is the evidence of this fact, it is a highly speculative statement. Once could easily surmise that they will sell the house. Nothing is known on this particular point. "Because the children are older now, modifications ....are being made" whoa, how do you know this? Where is this speculation coming from? "Two of the real estate agents...said that the house is no longer actively on the market...anything is for sale if the price is right" original research which is not backed by anything. FACT - The house is listed for sale for $65M (see http://www.floridalakefront.com/featured-properties/queen-of-versailles-orlando-windermere-lake-butler-6121-kirkstone-lane-O5071436/) and until this listing is taken down and we have real facts to back up new information, I see no reason to give this posters claims any credence.Darklighter69 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

To Anna, in reference to Darklighter69s comments,

Darklighter69 sees no reason? That's because he/she is trying to promote a specific view that the film is in a void and not related to the real world, and only wants to have info available that is positive about the film and its point of view, and negative about the Siegles.

Specifically addressing some of the comments above.

I took the time to directly contact both real estate agents that have the property on their web sites and both of the replied to me via email and stated the property is no longer on the market, regardless of the web pages still being available to view. Please feel free to contact them for yourself - ronda.shively@floridamoves.com and mike@derenthalrealty.com. If anyone wants I can forward the original emails I sent and the replies I received.

Further, to state viewers of the film would expect to anything happen (e.g. property sold) except see construction of the property resumed, is being disingenuous. The film made it clear the Siegels were in financial trouble and construction had been halted. The final shot of the film is the lights going off at the Westgate property in Las Vegas, knowing Westgate had to relinquish ownership of the property, and Westgate is where the money came from to start construction in the first place. How is it not relevant to the film to post construction has resumed? This has been reported in the main stream media on CNBC's program, and on appearances by the Siegles on Today, and many, many on line interviews. Just because you can't find a web page that states it outside of relating to the Siegels statements doesn't mean it's not accurate.

Look, I have no relationship to the Siegles or their businesses in any way, shape, or form. I asked the others editing this page if they would say the same and they have not commented. I suspect they have some relationship with the filmmakers or worked for Westgate Resorts, or have some kind of ax to grind against the Siegels. Everything I posted, EVERYTHING, was from sources found on the Internet, with the exception of the real estate agents I emailed with, which is first hand information not 'hearsay'. Simple Google searches proves this, as opposed to the above inference that I'm making things up for nefarious reasons. Here's an example - "Because the Siegels's children are older now, modifications to the original plan are being made including turning playrooms into a teenager’s cave with a second movie theater and a yoga studio." Here are the links that I got the info from - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2433532/Palace-Versailles-owners-David-Jackie-Siegel-tour-mansion.html - http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2013/12/13/jackie_siegel_queen_of_versailles_really_down_to_earth.html

How is it that when others making changes use internet sources (real estate web pages from over two years ago that are outdated) supposedly legitimate and should be referenced, and the internet sources I use are invalid because they primarily are quotes from what the Siegels have told various interviewers? I'm not claiming and my posting is not claiming everything, or anything, the Siegels say is true; I'm saying it is what they said and it directly relates to the film. If they are lying then time will tell and I'd be more than happy to post that, also.

All I am trying to do is post the information that those who saw the film would naturally want to know about, which is how I first came across the story and decided to add the info. Signed 68.60.66.69

I have posted facts, not a point of view. Perhaps you have a problem with the adoption of a neutral pov, but that is a key requirement of Wikipedia.

For guidance on how to maintain a neutral point of view, please read Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

For guidance on verifiability, please read Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

For guidance on original research, please read Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

For guidance on BLP, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

The key thing is to state facts that are INDEPENDENTLY verifiable, to abstain from personal opinion, original research, making assumptions, or allowing your bias to influence your post, and to always maintain a neutral approach. Lastly, please remember what page you are on. Your posts have to be relevant to the subject. You can't be posting stuff about a lawsuit on Westgate Resorts's page that has nothing to do with Westgate...Pemilligan has obviously taking care of that. Same applies here. This is a page about a documentary. It is not an opportunity to start going off on a tangent about stuff not covered by the documentary or is about the Siegels or is about Westgate, or the house or anything else not covered by the doc. There are pages for that information, and if there are not, create one. That is how Wikipedia works.

If you were to actually provide reliable, independent sources to your unbiased and unopinionated posts, you might get somewhere. You should not think that you can just write whatever you want and ignore WP guidelines. This is not a bulletin board or blog.Darklighter69 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

To Darklighter69

The film is about the Siegles. The film covers Westgate Resorts problems. Again you want to confine this page to your specific point of view.

The many articles on line are independent sources of information. When you have numerous national and international media sources with the same information (e.g. Siegels saying construction has resumed) it is not opinion or an assumption or hearsay. You are confused about what independent means; it does not mean the Siegels are telling the truth, it means it has been confirmed independently this what they have been quoted as saying.

As far as posting about a lawsuit D. Siegel filed against the filmmakers on the Westgate resorts page (Now who is posting info not related to the discussion here????), Siegel owns Westgate, the film includes Westgate in it, the Westgate page has the film as the first section, and another section is the Lawsuit against the filmmakers. It's all related.

The only problem is that you want to control this information from being connected to the film. It's all connected and should be referenced as such.

Is there a way to have an independent arbitrator look at this issue and make a ruling? Does WiKi have such a resource?

And again, you fail to speak to your relationship to the filmmakers and the Siegels and Westgate. This is the most telling fact. You keep implying and saying I'm somehow biased when indeed it is you who is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.66.69 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the actual dispute? If 68.60.66.69 wants something to stick, he should stay on topic, use proper sources and refrain from opining. Seems pretty simple.IAMmoviebuff (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Pemilligan. My dispute is with the use of non-neutral language and lack of independent sources. I have already articulated my points above. Since 68.60.66.69 has repeatedly deleted my postscript, I would ask him to explain exactly what is incorrect with my statements of fact, or any particular statement. Per the WP:DR, he is always welcome to add/modify something assuming that he follows "normal protocol", but he should not blindly delete my entire Postscript paragraph. I am open to discussing each of the points, but wantonly deleting an entire paragraph, which is completely backed by proper sources, and replacing with his unsourced text, is deliberately provocative to say the least.Darklighter69 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Spin, spin, spin, and more spin. The entire issue is 'what is allowed to post in the topic'. Some seem to think they have the right to determine what relates to each page and how and what does not, what is an independent source and not, what is an opinion and not. I completely disagree and I've already explained why. Unless others start chiming in, WiKi Dispute Resolution is next. It is also again extremely telling that none of participants in this 'Talk' have make the same disclaimer that I have regarding having no relationship of any kind with any of the involved parties, which I specifically requested. Signed 68.60.66.69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.66.69 (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you have not stated what facts you are ACTUALLY disputing, except the blanket right to replace other people's verified posts with your unverified ones, I am not sure how far you are going to get. Good luck with that approach.Darklighter69 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's remember that this dispute started when you deleted my Postscript paragraph without providing any explanation. It is normal protocol to explain why you are making edits, especially big ones. If you are not prepared to do that, then you are being provocative and arguing simply for the sake of argument. I actually have no idea what it is that you are actually disputing in my post, except demanding the right to write whatever you want without being held to ANY standards.

I have also been following the steps encouraged by others (Anna, Pemilligan), namely engagement on this talk page and now following the WP:Dispute Resolution guidelines. It would have been nice if you showed some good faith and did the same. Namely:

1 Resolving content disputes

   1.1 Follow the normal protocol
   1.2 Discuss with the other party
   1.3 Focus on content
   1.4 Disengage

In a show of continued good faith, and since we have others participating here, I am prepared to disengage for a week and allow others to respond to your future posts. So, go ahead and knock yourself out. If the collective wisdom is that your posts deserve to stay up, then when I return in a week I will respect that. Happy postings :-)Darklighter69 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)