Jump to content

Talk:MedMen/Archives/2014

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


  1. The media or other links I had removed were ones that went directly to the website of the subject of the article, rather than to the actual media sources. While not strictly prohibited, the guidance from WP:CITE on convenience links suggests that NPOV should be a consideration in whether such a link should be acceptable. Linking directly to the subject's webpage, to me, runs afoul of that.
  2. The links I removed as non-RS did not look like particularly notable or legitimate journalistic outlets.
  3. I removed each source separately so that they could be reinstated independently, should others find that appropriate, and I am happy to talk about each of them here, or at WP:RSN.
  4. I still think this article is needlessly promotional, and that the subject skirts the line of notability. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 13:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Go back and read the section on convenience links before trying to apply the policy. All it says is "Where several sites host a copy of the material, the site selected as the convenience link should be the one whose general content appears most in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability." If you were to suggest that it would be better to link directly to the original publisher, you'd be right. But to suggest it's unacceptable is just flatly wrong, and entirely baseless. Unless there's any evidence that MedMan either a) altered the content, or b) was involved in creating the content, there's no POV considerations to be made. Medman (as far as I can see) had no hand in writing this Wall Street Journal article: http://themedmen.com/uploaded/press/wsj_2013_08_11.png - so there's no basis for claiming there's a point of view problem in the article. Note also that WP:V and her sisters don't require hyper-links anyways, so even if the link were a problem (which it isn't), the correct action would be merely to remove the hyperlink. As a reference, it remains perfectly valid. (Unless you're also asserting that the Wall Street Journal is not a reliable source? And that CNBC is not a reliable source?)
Toke of the Town is a new source run by Voice Media Group. Merely being about marijauna doesn't make it an unreliable source. It's published by a serious publishing company, there's no evidence to suggest it's an unreliable source.
Similarly: Yahoo news - not a reliable source? Uhm, what? Want to rethink that?
Hemp.org is less clear. I could be convinced it's not reliable. Perhaps worth looking more into. WilyD 09:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Much of this makes sense, and unfortunately I'm short on time today otherwise I'd make some of these changes. I think that having a bunch of links to the subject of the article for media/references has the potential to drive traffic to their site in a way that simply having an EL does not. I would be willing to try and clarify this concern on the policy pages, because I think that it has the potential to be much more problematic for the project down the road if this is explicitly-permitted-by-policy.
With the exception of the WSJ link, the EL/media links also do not cite a date, time, or program name. If they had, I might have simply delinked them, which again, I feel is appropriate. There are additional copyright considerations (linking to potentially infringing content) that I don't think we need to get into.
The other refs I would be happy to ask about at RSN when I get a few moments. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 13:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The article was suffering from WP:OVERCITE. Five IC for the location of the company. The 5 IC were used at other points in the article. One IC could be left for the location, the rest used where needed. BTW I have no opinion as to whether certain links are promotional or not. Just stepping in here to bring up another issue that should be addressed....William 22:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A bunch of links have been dumped into the article, mostly in the See also section, which is reserved for links to existing Wikipedia articles which are not already linked within the text of the article. Some others were dumped at the top of the page. Formatting was also problematic, so I'll clean them up. I'm moving all of them here.

I suspect many of them could be used to source content, but that needs to be done properly. Use the citation template. Don't use bare URLs. To avoid confusion between multiple sources from the same journals, name all refs using the author's name, not the journal's name.

A note of warning. If the issues mentioned at the top of the article aren't cleared up quickly, the article is in danger of being deleted. It does read like a press release. There isn't a single link of criticism or controversy, so NPOV is not being heeded. - Brangifer (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

CoI tag

I suspect that Medmenu, based on their username, has a close connection or CoI with the subject of the article. I would encourage them to disclose any affiliations they might have per the CoI guidelines at WP:PSCOI. I will be tagging their page as well. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 00:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MedMen/Archives/2014&oldid=1050169280"