- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
Withdrawn
Joel Gilbert
edit- ... that filmmaker Joel Gilbert, known for his multiple documentaries on Bob Dylan's music and career, is also known for his Bob Dylan tribute band "Highway 61 Revisited Band"?
- Reviewed: Albert G. Mumma
- Comment: A December 22 stub sent to AFD the same day as creation, but rescued through some easy-to-perform 5x expansion and sourcing
Created/expanded by MichaelQSchmidt (talk), Bonkers The Clown (talk). Nominated by MichaelQSchmidt (talk) at 05:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've had a look through it and made a number of copyedits. It's generally OK, but a few of the sources are very questionable, either being blogs or categorically unreliable sources: specifically #11 (Blogcritics), #13 and #15 (WND) and #16 (Right Wing Watch). I don't think the article can be accepted with these sources being used. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Appreciate your copyedits which stressed that the sources were review sites, and not "fact" sites.[1] In addessing your concerns, Blogcritics was used in the manner for which it exists... to source a published opinion offered in the Joel Gilbert article's reception section, not a fact. Our own article on them shows that unlike a common "blog", they have some oversite when it states herein "A team of editors reviews every article prior to publication on the site." And toward the site itself being recognized by sources determined as themselves reliable, our own article shares "Blogcritics has won several blog awards, including a Bloggie and recognition as a Forbes.com Best Media Blog. In addition, the site is an accredited news source for both Google News and Yahoo! News". As long as the reception section makes it clear that it IS an opinion, it becomes one of the instances where an opinion site is generally acceptable for sharing someone else's opinion, but not a fact. As for WorldNetDaily, It is a publication that is itself used by and quoted by numerous reliable sources, and is used here to source a published opinion/review... not a fact. See applicable guideline WP:RSOPINION. So while we must always strive for balance, we do not automatically disqualify a published opinion based upon the political bent of the person offering that opinion, but instead consider whether or not they have the background allowing their offering such opinions, and make sure our readers understand that ISan opinion, and not a fact... as in stating "the reviewer stated XYZ", or "the opinion of the reviewer was XYZ". In the case of WND, the "opinion" being sourced is that of journalist Jerome Corsi. As for Right Wing Watch, the publication has an article on WP describing their organization and political leanings, but as we know nothing about author Miranda Blue, I agree it will be removed as a citation. I will take a clue from how you reworked earlier sections to rewrite worrisome portions to ensure our readers know that the text being cited are opinions of the specific reviewers, and not to be seen as a reporting of "fact". Be able to get to it in a few hours. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well said, Michael. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Modified setction per example set by User:Prioryman, to better show that the section represents reviewer opinion and not news fact. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for overlooking the fact that this was outstanding. To be honest, I am still uncertain about these sources, especially quoting someone as extreme and marginal as Corsi. I'll ask on WT:DYK for a second opinion. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well... "extreme and marginal" as Corsi or WorldNetDaily may be thought, Wikipedia does not judge what they say, but under WP:RSOPINION simply and neutrally reports that it was said.[2][3] Same goes for Blogcritics, as a site themselves quoted by and used by reliable sources and widely used through consensus across Wikipedia,[4] it would seem that disallowing citations to sourcable opinions would result in a large number of deletions across the project. I am not asserting THAT any opinion-maker is correct, but am simply showing that an opinion was made. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Prioryman asked for a second opinion, and mine is that neither source is appropriate. The first Corsi opinion piece, which is criticizing an MSNBC piece on the movie, ends with an offer to sell the reader a DVD of Gilbert's movie. Using it is simply inappropriate—and by extension, the other Corsi WND piece—especially as all the information being sourced for this article is also available from a WP:RS that presumably has no bias, The Hollywood Reporter (including the two-year claim). There's no need or reason for Corsi's opinions to be here. As for the "Confessions of an Overworked Mom" blogger, who describes her blog as "a site devoted to helping busy moms make choices about the eco-friendly, time saving, gourmet products they use in their homes", she strikes me as a very odd choice for commenting on Gilbert's work. Is there no professional, more reliable source available? This review is the sole seeming basis for the later statement, "was more poorly received" (since the other reviewer gives 1.5 of 5 stars, a pretty bad review despite the emphasis given here to its "thorough overview"), and this strikes me as a pretty weak justification. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No action has been taken on the above issues in the week since the nominator was notified. Allowing one more week for the issues to be addressed, since an icon was not previously given. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Nominator withdraws nomination. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
