| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Reference template
editI'm a little surprised that [ User:Ohms_law ] removed the BLP refimprove template from [this] article. I searched for some time to find references to back up many of the "facts" in the article and couldn't find any that weren't somehow related to Tanner's own websites and publications. For example:
- "In 2008, Tanner produced, directed and presented two basketball documentaries for Channel 4."
- "In November 2008, Tanner produced and presented "Team GB: Road To Eurobasket""
- "Tanner has worked as a television news producer and reporter since 1999"
Instead of tagging each line with "citation needed" tags, I put the ref improve banner on top of the article to hopefully help shore up the information above so it's not removed as unsourced. The purpose of the tag (per:Template:BLP Sources) is:
"This template additionally adds the article to Category:BLP articles lacking sources. This allows editors who keep an eye on biographies and BLP concerns to find articles in need of attention quickly."
The information bulleted above needs to be qualified with reliable sources, hence the tag. I won't add it back in myself, but I'm really not sure why it was removed in the first place.... Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to re-add it, if you feel strongly enough about it (which it seems that you do). All that I want to point out is that there was no obvious reason for the tag, and none of this was mentioned here on the talk page. The reasons that the tag was added may have been obvious to you, but they obviously weren't for me.
- Regardless, this article isn't on my watchlist, and I don't have any particular interest in it. Feel free to re-add the tag or revert anything else that you feel is appropriate.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)- Thanks for the reply. I will restore the ref improve template as there is only a single third party source for the entire article, and it only covers one statement. Additional references would definitely help bolster the info contained within the article, and my search came up empty. Hopefully the tag will help draw people in who will perhaps have better luck finding reliable sources to add to the page. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- My only real issue with that er... attitude... is that it's redundant. People are supposed to look for and add references to articles whenever they can. The real problem is that those cleanup tags are not supposed to be permanent features, and this sort of reasoning goes a long way towards making them fairly permanent. I did something to address the tag, although I'll be the first to admit that what I did here was the probably the absolute bare minimum, which lead me to remove it. You're not satisfied, which is perfectly acceptable, but it does lead to the question of what would be acceptable (especially to those who follow up here, over the years). The question that I'm asking is, what would be required to remove the tag?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)- Reliable sources for the three unsourced bullet points above would be ideal. To be honest, the info could be removed entirely under BLP policy, but I thought it likely that adding the refimprove template would lead to proper referencing (I snooped around for about an hour trying to find reliable sources unrelated to the subject for the bullet points above but only found the one that is included in the reference section). I'm curious as to whether you object to the refimprove tag being used in this particular article, or whether you are adverse to them in general? This certainly wasn't a drive by tagging - I spent some time editing the article and replaced the "unreferenced" tag that had been there previously with the more accurate refimprove tag once I hit a wall in sourcing. This was the state of the article before I edited. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- My only real issue with that er... attitude... is that it's redundant. People are supposed to look for and add references to articles whenever they can. The real problem is that those cleanup tags are not supposed to be permanent features, and this sort of reasoning goes a long way towards making them fairly permanent. I did something to address the tag, although I'll be the first to admit that what I did here was the probably the absolute bare minimum, which lead me to remove it. You're not satisfied, which is perfectly acceptable, but it does lead to the question of what would be acceptable (especially to those who follow up here, over the years). The question that I'm asking is, what would be required to remove the tag?
- Thanks for the reply. I will restore the ref improve template as there is only a single third party source for the entire article, and it only covers one statement. Additional references would definitely help bolster the info contained within the article, and my search came up empty. Hopefully the tag will help draw people in who will perhaps have better luck finding reliable sources to add to the page. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)