Jump to content

Talk:Cary Sherman

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

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at UC Berkeley supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

[edit]

Hello fellow editors, I am just writing this to let you know that my goal in editing this page is to provide a more rounded profile of who Cary Sherman is and what he does. Although I hold a considerable amount of disdain toward the RIAA, I will make sure to remain unbiased and simply present information that will be helpful in creating a more informative article. Please let me know if any of you feel I am pushing the policy limits or doing anything that could be considered unacceptable. Thanks. Gunheim (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

There seem to be no references that establish notability for this person. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look? SilverserenC 01:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked very hard at the article when I tagged it and didn't see any sources in it that established notability, nor any assertion of notability in the text. Notability is not inherited from being associated with a notable organisation. If you know of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that establish that this subject has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, then please add them. Merely pointing at Google hits doesn't establish anything. Merely deleting the tag does't establish anything. Merely asserting very clearly notable doesn't establish anything. Merely asserting There shouldn't be any discussion about this at all, it's completely evident doesn't establish anything. Merely asserting The article just needs to be improved doesn't establish anything. If you think the article needs to be improved, feel free to improve it, preferably by adding citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise, AFD beckons. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cary_Sherman&diff=475722763&oldid=451941525 – You removed a large portion of the article before tagging it, and with the recent activity, I doubt that you're going to have your AfD. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I removed material that was unsourced and/or irrelevant, for reasons clearly explained in the edit summaries. Are you disputing any of that? Activity does not equal notability. If there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject then that's fine. If not, then not. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources now establish notability. Gobonobo T C 21:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't tell me you just made a NOTINHERITED argument saying that the president/CEO of a company doesn't obtain any notability from that position. That is, I think, the worst misapplication of WP:NOTINHERITED that I have ever seen. Furthermore, your argument that there weren't any sources exhibited in the article, therefore making it non-notable, is completely false. Please read WP:NRVE and never make that argument again. SilverserenC 00:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, there's a lot bundled up in here, so I'll take a little space to unpick it.
  • Firstly, let's remember that we are discussing the article and how to improve it. The fundamental reason for notability criteria is that there must be sources that make it possible to write an encyclopaedic article on the the subject. If all that sources say about some person is that they are CEO of an organisation on which we have an article, then there is not enough to write a separate article on that person. That is why notability is not inherited.
  • Secondly, this is not an AFD, so discussion of the applicability of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is not strictly relevant.
  • Thirdly, I did not argue that "there weren't any sources exhibited in the article, therefore making it non-notable". If I had said that, it would have been false, because there were sources. What I stated clearly and I think unambiguously was that in a certain version of the article there were no sources that established notability. That is, such sources as there were failed to establish notability. This is quite different, quite consistent with the facts, and I think a reasonable assessment. It seems odd to read it in a way which is incompatbile with the obvious facts.
  • Fourthly, the second part of that argument is that I did not claim that no sources existed in the entire world to establish notability, but that if they did exist they were not in the article. That is a clear invitation to other editors who have the time and inclination to find such sources, if they can, to improve article. That is indeed what has happened. This is all perfectly consistent with WP:NRVE, of course.
Finally, an article talk page is for discussion of the article not for commentary on the perceived failings of fellow editors, and especially not for issuing bad-tempered orders to them. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles that you'll find on Sherman are those that express the policies that he takes, his opinion and support or opposition of things, his actions as CEO. Unless you're going to say that the President is non-notable, because the same applies to him, the sources are about his policy decisions and his actions within that position.
You're the one that brought up NOTINHERITED. :/
But the whole point is that sources in an article are irrelevant to notability. And see the first thing I wrote for the answer to the rest of this.
And, hey, I did say please. Nor was any of it bad-tempered. I think you're applying emotions to me through internet text that I didn't and don't have. SilverserenC 15:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is important is finding significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All other notability arguments are secondary. His position as a CEO only makes him notable precisely to the extent that it leads to significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Since posting my (entirely accurate) comment on the sources, or lack of them, at the time, editors have proposed further sources which may help. I think that makes my comment rather relevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

It is not clear that Digital Music News is a reliable source. It describes itself as The Digital Music News publisher and founder is Paul Resnikoff. All articles are written by Resnikoff and news analyst Alexandra Osorio. [1]. That looks like a self-published source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS is for self-published sources (like if Sherman had his own website and that was being used as a source here). Feel free to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like though. I've provided a separate ref to back up the specific claim. Gobonobo T C 20:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Resnikoff writes and publishes this website. Why is that not a self-published source? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that you would consider Digital Music News to be a "personal website" under WP:SPS. I would disagree. Many legitimate news websites have a small staff, but that doesn't mean they are unreliable sources. Gobonobo T C 21:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking about news we bsites in general, I'm asking about this one. As far as I can tell it is owned, written and published by the same person, and hence is self-published in the natural meaning of the phrase. So is there any reason not to regard it as a personal web site or group blog, and apply WP:SPS, which states "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV concern

[edit]

I'm concerned about the paragraph Sherman is a strong advocate of SOPA and PIPA. Following the defeat of the bills in January 2012, Sherman penned an op-ed in The New York Times critical of the bills' detractors and their motives.[6] The opinion piece was criticized for factual inaccuracy and demagoguery.[7][8] It simply quotes an article by Sherman and two responses to it, summarising the two responses as if Wikipedia were endorsing them, and probably violating WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself". Is there a reliable secondary source that describes Sherman's position and the reaction to it? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we should find a secondary source for Sherman's piece that describes what it was about, the use of the criticism pieces isn't really primary. The section could be better worded something along the lines, "The opinion piece was discussed by such and such, who said something." That's a direct, proper use of the sources. Because otherwise you would be seeing that all critical press on a subject are primary sources. SilverserenC 20:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that paragraph belongs in the article at all. Is writing a single NYT op-ed really so important to his life that it needs to be mentioned in a biography? I have my doubts. (If it is included, though, the criticism should be included as well.) Robofish (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As CEO of the RIAA and previously as President, Sherman has written a number of op-eds. This particular op-ed is important as it is a response to the defeat of SOPA/PIPA, a defining moment in his tenure as CEO. The current treatment does not violate WP:PRIMARY, which says that primary sources may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Gobonobo + c 15:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is of NPOV and due weight rather than reliability. Who says that this is a "defining moment in his tenure", and why is this one op-ed and these two reactions to it more worthy of inclusion than anything else? If that's one editor's personal opinion, it carries less weight than an assessment of Sherman's career in an independent secondary source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cary Sherman. 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 02:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cary Sherman. 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) 11:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cary_Sherman&oldid=1200776204"