User talk:Lets Be Neutral

Charles Sherrod

Please read regarding reliable sources and our Biographies of Living Persons policy. Damaging claims regarding a living person must be very well-sourced, and an opinion blog and YouTube will not cut it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Quoting the very reliable sources document you referred to me, "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source." The video was recorded by and posted by the University of Virginia - note where the link on their podcast page goes: http://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/news.nsf/pp/podcastfrontpage (in fact, all of their videos are posted on Youtube by them). I believe that we can agree that the University of Virginia is a reliable source for videos of speeches that they hosted? Further, the video is not an excerpt of the speech, but rather the full thing. Lets Be Neutral (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also wanted to add-- where is the violation of the BLP? Let's examine the three tenets of the BLP:

   * Neutral point of view (NPOV)-- The text I had put there stated no opinion on what Sherrod said, other than quoting it, and stating where and when he made the statements. Please give examples of where you think NPOV was violated by the phrasing I used.
   * Verifiability (V) -- The video was linked, so that anyone who took the time could verify it themselves. The video was posted on Youtube by the UVA Law School, using their official account, and is linked to from the official website of the school.
   * No original research (NOR) -- There was no original research here.

Can you please substantiate your assertion that the text as I had left it violates any of those tenets? Lets Be Neutral (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a published source, and you are only picking one quote out of the whole video. There is no coverage in reliable news sources for the quote you're trying to emphasize. Yes, exceptions can be made for YouTube in some cases if the news coverage is already there, but it's not. As a result, it's placing undue weight on something that has no coverage, using one piece of the video, which violates original research policy. Combine those problems with the fact that the article is a BLP, and you've violated that policy as well.

If you still feel I'm wrong, I recommend getting more input at the BLP noticeboard, which is frequented by people very familiar with all of those policies. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"It's not a published source, and you are only picking one quote out of the whole video" It is a published source. The source is the University of Virginia. Youtube is nothing but the archive.

As for trying to claim it is "Original Research", I dissent from the idea that quoting someone in their own words can be considered "original research". That's nonsense, to be frank.

As for the no coverage aspect of your argument, I find that to be more persuasive. If and when that changes (by there being news coverage), then perhaps this edit will be revisited. Lets Be Neutral (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to explain regarding original research policy, if you only have that video as a source, it would be considered a primary source (see in particular that section of the policy). Plucking out one particular piece of a primary source, without other secondary sources specifically referencing that section, would typically be considered original research on Wikipedia.

It may seem a little cryptic if you haven't run into bad examples before, but it is an important policy. In my experience, it's one of the ones most often violated in the process of injecting POV into articles. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 06:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree over if taking a quotation out of a video of a speech constitutes original research. I am confident that, over time, that interpretation of guidelines will be reconsidered, as it simply does not pass the smell test. Regardless, as anticipated, the story is now in the press, and as such I believe the neutrally phrased, factual statement I had crafted should be returned to the page. The Washington Examiner: Former Rep. Bob Barr in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and there will be more to come, undoubtedly, since the Sherrods have filed lawsuits against Breitbart. Lets Be Neutral (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind Examiner.com is not considered a reliable source (The Washington Examiner is an entirely different site: [1]). I'm not seeing where Mr Barr references the quotes, either. The original research policy is unlikely to change anytime soon. It's there to prevent people from placing their own personal interpretations of sources into articles, something that is attempted on a regular basis in all types of subjects, from liberal to conservative, current to historical. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)