Jump to content

Talk:Caitlin Hill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously,is this even worth documenting (let alone discussing) in Wikipedia?!? My dog peed in the yard- can I make an article about that?

[edit]

You Tube stats as reference

[edit]

I'm not sure about using stats displayed on You Tube web pages as a reliable source to cite. Besides the fact that You Tube tech can be "iffy", there's nothing that confirms their accuracy. x 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

I'm not sure it matters so much: if YouTube says she is the site's 11th most subscribed user, then she has the title of 11th most subscribed user, whether or not that title corresponds to any kind of technical reality. Ichormosquito 18:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed CHUD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chudzooka (talk • contribs)

"YouTube celebrity"

[edit]

"Celebrity", when qualified by "YouTube", refers to a YouTube user's possessing substantial fame within the YouTube community. To the extent it is an oxymoron, the term has slightly negative connotations; but it HAS been picked up by the mainstream press: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Ichormosquito 06:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you create a wiki article explaining what it is? This person may have substantial fame on the internet, but the mainstream public has largely *NOT* heard of her. So as it stands, I'm changing it to the far something far more logical and less misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impulsion (talk • contribs)
You know, I was thinking the same thing, actually. However, a look at WP:NEO shows that it fails the criteria listed there for an article about the term itself. While the term is certainly being used, I've not found any articles about the term itself. Therefore, it fails WP:NEO. As for the actual use of the term in this article, yeah, the term has seen some mainstream use, and yes, I know what a "YouTube celebrity" is (and am familiar with Hill's work on YouTube), but for the totally uninitiated, the term would be like, eh?, so I'd leave it off, at least at this point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You convinced me. I'll be on the look out for better sources' regarding the term. Ichormosquito 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Wikipedia currently doesn't have an "internet personality" infobox, so "performer" is the next best thing. Neither "actor" nor "comedian" quite cuts it. I like the customizable color scheme and the option to list a performer's "genres", even if "genre" isn't the best word. Ichormosquito 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Day (Nerimon)

[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place cos I don't know the Wikipedia procedures, but I noticed someone adding information about me to Caitlin's page saying I'm 'romantically linked' and whatnot - despite you removing this, I wanted to clarify that the person adding this (Demon1988) isn't me and I have no affiliation with them. (Also, I'm not romantically linked with her, I just made a video about her to which she responded and that was it, so there's no basis here.) - Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.240.137 (talk • contribs)

So basically, it seems that the system worked as it should in this case. We had no reliable sources for the claim, and it got killed. Thank you for coming by to confirm. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIAS

[edit]

this article is completely absurd. i am not sure why it's noteworthy that this girl, Caitlin submitted a "video" to some contest for MTV. didn't anyone bother to state that she didn't even make it into the contest at all? is this article her resume/cv? wow, completely ridiculous and bias information. this article reads like some make believe "advertisement" just added to help her career which doesn't even exist. please discuss, thanks. Sexyorge

It's gone now. Ichormosquito 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the MTV thing, which has been struck from the article, what other concerns do you have? Ichormosquito 23:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i am sorry are you an administrator or are you just asking me as a user? sorry just confused. i believe i already stated my "concerns". however, in general this article reads like an advertisement for "caitlin"'s resume. it's rather offensive and lacks factual information. Sexyorge
CNET, The Age and 60 Minutes constitute solid grounds for an article. After that, relevant primary sources are allowed for the purpose of fleshing the article out. Nothing here is fabricated; and information, provided by various contributers, is presented in a stripped down, encyclopedic manner. If what concerns you is that she even has an article, you are free to list it at Articles for Deletion. Ichormosquito 00:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh ok great thanks for the tip Sexyorge

Neo-Nazi?

[edit]

Heh, sorry about asking this but howcome there is no info on her being a neo-nazi? She made a video saying that the 88 in her name means "heil hitler" and yet no one is talking about it. You can see the video for yourself here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRoAPJ1T6nQ

DemonicSailormoon 06:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that video, and if one actually paid attention, she was making fun of people who thought that. So no dice. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scenes in that video are edited by someone other than Caitlin Hill. One of her videos called 'The Myth Busterer' was downloaded and edited to mix up her words. In the actual video (which became a private video a few days ago) she says it DOESN'T stand for Heil Hitler, but it does stand for her year of birth, 1988. DhrSiN 18:07, 20 July 2007 (GMT +1)
Well, Caitlin wrote that on a tribute account TheHill;

Dude - when did you get TheHill - I wanted TheHill when I first signed up, but somebody - I'm guessing you? - had already taken it :D Haha. So I added my year of birth, 1988 = 88 and that got me into a whole world of trouble with all the crazy Nazis that are around here...stupid Nazis...and yeah...and now I'm here.

Nice to meet you :D

Caitlin

OnurTcontribs 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]
  • this article lacks neutrality various users are friends of thehill88 and create information that lacks facts Sexyorge

ichoromosquito is friends with the hill88. Hopeftw 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof on either count? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I just visited this crazy wikipedia page and though it is flattering that someone created for me, this person is not a personal friend. I have never met this person. I am also not a Nazi.

Cheers - Caitlin Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.104.12 (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thehill88.com

[edit]

My understanding is that Caitlin Hill is the one running the site, and "Official Fansite" is her choice of title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a YouTube partner

[edit]

ht tp://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=98147531&blogID=312012392. According to WP:SELFPUB, I think we can source the blog; but I'm conflicted. Judging from what she wrote, this entire article might soon violate WP:BLP. Any ideas on how we should proceed? Ichormosquito 04:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmmm... lemme think on all that for a bit. I'm still in a bit of shock, seeing Caitlin Hill announce her retirement...
We do have a problem citing it, though, as blog.myspace.com is on a spam blacklist. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not run the site. I have nothing to do with it. Why would I run a fan site? It may come as a shock to you all, but I'm not that into myself... however, I can't let peoples statements about me run away without me correcting them. - Caitlin Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.104.12 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin, thanks for settling this. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other account...

[edit]

I tried removing it in the past, but I promise that's not my IP. It's probably that of a protective fan. I don't think it's worth an edit war. Ichormosquito 02:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Caitlin from?

[edit]

The article mentions "repeated travels to the United States" but doesn't say where from. Canada? Anthony (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hill is from Brisbane, Australia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Age page archived

[edit]

For the benefit of editors wishing to use The Age as a source if it ever succumbs to LINKROT I have successfully submitted the URL to WebCite at [6]. There are now two ways to cite it:

(I fixed the date as WebCite got it wrong.)

Here is the alternative long but transparent WbCite URL:

Here is an equivalent Wikipedia {{cite web}} template:

  • Hutcheon, Stephen (2006-09-04). "Caitlin raps her way to YouTube success - web - Technology - theage.com.au". The Age. Archived from the original on 2010-03-09. Retrieved 9 March 2010.

-84user (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor just try to remove youtube references since I listed current article as an example for youtube referenced articles in Talk:VDM Publishing House#Examples for youtube view counts in wikipedia. In any case 404 youtube links might be noted, yet still should be kept as they are peer reviewed at the time they added by wiki community. Kasaalan (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Page protected until we come to some agreement on this. Discuss. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the 2nd most active editor on this page, you should not have been the one to protect it.

That said, the edit war does need to stop. The claim that her videos have a cumulative 17M views is sourced to a secondary source, so there is no need to use a YoiuTube link for it, as a primary source of dubious reliability. The kicker is that the given YouTube link does not even support the claim. There is no justifcation for it whatsoever. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb, please unprotect this so editors can improve this article. The main problems to me are unverifiable cites, but I would accept instructions that help an editor such as myself access and verify the source. I will not accept assurances that someone else has checked them. Speaking for myself I have nothing against YouTube links as citations and have added them to articles myself, but they have been accessible links and had details on where the supporting information was, such as how many minutes and seconds into the video. WebCite can also be used to capture pages and news articles that will probably disappear later. I would also accept sources that require a registration, such as is now needed for old ft.com articles. I also see nothing wrong with just leaving out information that cannot be verified, maybe move it to Talk until good cites are found. Here is a list of some unverifiable cites (The Huffington Post cite works and verifies, but the two YouTube lists do not mention Hill or Caitlin):
  • Hill maintains one of the most subscribed channels on YouTube, with a regular audience of over 65,000.[1]
  • Her videos have a cumulative view count of over 17 million.[2] [3]
  • Hill submitted her first video to YouTube 16 August 2006, as a fan response to popular web serial lonelygirl15.[4]

References

  1. ^ YouTube Top100 Most Subscribed List
  2. ^ Myers, Jack "YouTube's Biggest Viral Video Stars Sign With Hitviews to Tap Into Marketers' Budgets" The Huffington Post, 25 November 2008
  3. ^ YouTube Most Viewed List
  4. ^ Re: I Probably Shouldn't Post This...
-84user (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that last cite re: Hill's first video, that one can be summarily struck as inaccurate, as Hill's first video was one called "Way to introduce me" or something to that effect, and showed Hill in formalwear and brushing her teeth. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MommasLittleHelper and 84user, the site needs unprotecting, the links to youtube don't support the claims we are actually misdirecting people! I can't find a secondary source for the regular audience of 65,000. It might be best to omit this statement. SkirridSkirrid (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if we agree on a few points in order to get this article going again:

  • There are no reliable sources available to verify most-subscribed status and cumulative views.
  • The cited primary sources do not verify the claims made in the article.
  • Hill's first video was not the response to Lonelygirl, and is unverifiable anyway, as neither video is publicly available on YouTube anymore.

Does that about cover it? Can I get an agreement from the various involved parties so I can unprotect? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree essentially but think the Huffington Post article was okay source for cumulative views.Skirrid (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hill's first video was not the response to Lonelygirl". Hmm, actually I think this is correct, but I'll see if I can verify. I was around on youtube at the time and closely followed the lonelygirl15 hoax.--Milowent (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My replies:
  • Huffington Post is fine for what it says. There may exist other reliable sources, but I haven't seen them. I just found a source that also supports some claims (see Scholar source below), so a rewording to match what it states would also work.
  • Primary sources can be used to support claims of the form "so and so claims this and that", I think. At least I've done this for a few articles now.
  • First video: Who knows? We can at least say "the rap response video attracted the attention of viewers" citing Kelli S. Burns.
-84user (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Social impact of YouTube#YouTube gatherings also indicates she was one of the most viewed in youteb during 2006-2007 with RS references. So we can tell she was among most viewed during 2006-2007. Most viewed and most subscribed links to youtube is pointless since it constantly changes, and she is not in those lists anymore. But original video links are still useful. Kasaalan (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Even if the original youtube links do not used as reference, they should stay in external links section.

  • I am the one who marked the original links as private and not available anymore.
  • Yet, without original youtube links the youtube fame article is a bit pointless. The references contain title and url info, which are valuable.
    • And most of all even if they tagged as private, the links prove the video still exists.
  • Also any 3rd party reference over the view counts will only quote youtube stats, so for a youtube fame article we should contain the original youtube urls either as reference, or as external link.
  • Webcite is mainly for scholar articles, do not expect webcite to cite youtube channel.

I will try providing more sources, if you hide reference links in article and add them to external links section I am fine with it. Otherwise do not remove references.

Read Talk:VDM Publishing House#Examples for youtube view counts in wikipedia why the user persistently try to remove some links.

Links

Links. Kasaalan (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that my motivation matters, or that you are correct in describing it, but in addition to me, there are 3 other editors here who agree that the YouTube references don't support the claims they are used for - and thus they need to be removed as references. Even you seem to agree to that - so can we get this article unprotected, and the "references" removed? Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your motivation matters, because you have no intention to read or improve the article or find any references, you just try to start an edit war for your interest in VDM article by removing original links to the youtube video in a youtube fame article. I just proved above about the references support the text by tags, date and view count that the video was related to lonelygirl15 video, viewed over 550.000 times and released on 2006 by research, since we have the original links.
Yet if you still feel "they do not support" try reading below, since I provided the full text of the academic RS that proves the links support the text, and even provides more detail.
By the way I also proved the academic blogs for VDM are RS, 1 by 1, yet you didn't comment yet. I will readd text accordingly later whether you reply or not. Kasaalan (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An appeal to motivation is a classic logical fallacy, known as argumentum ad hominem. What my motives are, or what you imagine them to be, have no relevance to the argument that the links you bring as references do not support the claims. Note that I am not disputing the veracity of the claims - I am disputing the use of the YouTube links to prove the claims correct.If we have reliable, scholarly sources that support the claims - it goes without saying that we should use them instead of the YouTube links, which are not only primary sources, not only unreliable sources, but do not in fact support the claims. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not if, we already have the RS content, as you may tell if you can read. Also the case is more like Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem where you claim you are right because you claim so, and you interfere because I listed the article as an example in Talk:VDM Publishing House#Examples for youtube view counts in wikipedia. Some users claimed youtube links did not support the text before I provided the references. And most of the factual details revealed by RS. Youtube fame article without original youtube links are pointless. Kasaalan (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't claim to be right because I claim so. I claim your YouTube references don't support your claims - and they don't, as 3 other editors have noted. They lead you to pages where Hill's video's aren't even listed, or to 'Private pages'. You provided OTHER references, which do support those claims, and since these are higher quality references, we don't need the YT ones, which don't support the claims, and are primary sources, to boot. We can list the YT links (those that don't lead to private pages) as external links, but they are not references.Momma's Little Helper (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

[edit]

Play nicely, everyone... SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar source

[edit]

Here is one quick result from a Google Scholar search for "Caitlin Hill" in the two subject areas Business and Social Sciences.

-84user (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GIRL TALK

Videos featuring a single young woman talking directly to the camera, often in the intimacy of her bedroom, have been catching the attention of Youtube viewers. Caitlin Hill, a.k.a thehill88, is an Australian teenager who ascended to Youtube fame after posting three videos in six days. The video that caught the attention of Youtube viewers was a rap response to a video by Lazydork, the Youtube comedian Richard Stern, about lonelygirl15. Although this video attracted over 4 million views, many of her other 111 videos have less than 1.5 million views, with some having as low as tens of thousands of views. In May 2007, Hill joined the YouTube Partnership Program. Many other YouTube and film opportunities have come her way including an unpaid role in an independent horror film called The Girl in the Red Dress. 48 She has also appeared on the Tom Green Show, been featured at a YouTube convention, and auditioned for roles in big-budget films, eventually landing a part in the remake of Plan 9 from Outer Space. 49

The text. Yet I couldn't check the references 48 and 49. Kasaalan (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social impact of YouTube#YouTube gatherings also indicates she was one of the most viewed in youteb during 2006-2007 with RS references. So we can tell she was among most viewed during 2006-2007. most viewed and most subscribed links to youtube is pointless since it constantly changes, and she is not in those lists anymore. But original video links are still useful. Kasaalan (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caitlin Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caitlin Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caitlin Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Caitlin Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caitlin_Hill&oldid=1213814593"