Talk:Nolan Investigates

Quotes

Way too many quotes for this to remain published in the mainspace. See this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I find the guidance around quotes kind of vague. There were a ton of quotes before, absolutely. It's easy to say that's too many. It's less clear to me what qualifies as "few enough". What is the quote quota? Is it one quote per section? One per 2 sections? Give me a specific number or ratio, and I'll fit it. Also: Is the particular issue that it has to many quotes period? Or is it just about quotes that are formatted as quotes? Do small snippets of quotes imbedded in paragraphs count as quotes? Eievie (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's nothing exact. While MOS:QUOTATIONS and WP:QUOTE are good resources, it's a judgement call at the end of the day. With this, I saw the transcript, 2 full quotes, 5 block quotes, and 6 extended quotes (which was obviously way too much as you noted). My preference is for you to try and write as much of this article as you can without any extended quotes and only later add them to help illustrate select points.
For the record, I was the one who removed the episode blurbs. There is no reason exact quotes should be used when they can be summarized independently by us (ie. not paraphrased from the blurbs). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I put in blurbs as a stylistic element lifted from other pages, but sure, they can go. The only quotes I'll really fight for, that I think are really key, are a) the ones regarding the reticence, and b) the BBC's official statement about leaving. Eievie (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eievie: I'm not saying it should have no quotes, but you should try to avoid using quotes whenever possible.
For example, the blurbs could be replaced with summaries, right? I took a listen to the first episode of the podcast, and I summarized it here. This helps reduce reliance on external copyrighted material. I hope that makes a bit more sense? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarity

I had an English teacher once to really pushed for quotes. "You can't just claim that X says Y, you have to show me that it does." So yeah; paraphing feels kinda like bullshitting to me, but I'll try.

But I request, once again, a specific number regarding how many quotes, or what proportion, are allowed. This vague "too much" thing is extremely frustrating. Make up some fixed number to give me, and I'll get below it. --Eievie (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eievie: Wikipedia guidelines are left intentionally vague so that there is room for interpretation. However, quotes have the potential to be a WP:CV and should only be used sparingly for legal reasons. I don't see any specific reasons why this Wikipedia page needs any quotes, but I would recommend getting the number down to two or three quotes rather then 2/5ths of the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Now there's 950ish words, of which 145 are quotes. 2 major quotes (approx 100 words), and a few smaller inline quotes (approx 50 words). Are small inline quotes (just phrases not whole sentences) equally a problem? Eievie (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

@Devonian Wombat: Can I get some more details on what specifically the issue is? I've been stuck in a multiple loops "go back, do more" in regards to quotes. I was told it had too many quotes, when I asked how many quotes were allowed, I didn't get any real answer. It felt like "bring me a rock".

Now that I've been cleared on the quotes front, this next issue is that's it's not neutral enough. I don't see that, but of course I don't, since I wrote it. Ideally I'd like other people to add things I overlooked⁠—I think that would make it more neutral. But that can't happen until after this draft gets off the ground. Can I have have some specific guidelines about how neutrality is rated, and what I can do to remedy that? --Eievie (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Eievie:, All in all, the article is very close to being ready for mainspace, but at the moment there are numerous examples of wording that is very clearly not-neutral, and in its current the way the article is worded works to depicts Stonewall as "the bad guys" in the situation, which would be a WP:NPOV violation. There are a number of changes I would recommend making to fix that;

• "PinkNews, whose founder did not take part in the podcast" - Cut out everything after the comma
• "Stonewall's only response was a single tweet on October 14" - I would recommend changing this to "Stonewall responded to the Podcast with a Tweet on October 14" or something along those lines.
• I would recommend cutting out the Tweet block in the production section entirely, the information can be presented adequately by plain text.
• I presume the statements around the expertise of Stonewall in the Series overview section are coming from the Podcast itself, if so they should be attributed to the Podcast.
• Cut out "even when pressed about implausible that sounded" in thhe Production section
• Additionally, there's also the fact that large chunks of the article, including almost all of the Production section, is sourced to primary sources such as interviews. It would be great if secondary sources could be found, though that won't hold up the article from being accepted.

Once you've made the changes, you can give me another ping and I'll review the article again. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Two things:

Firstly, I've always been taught that primary sources are better than secondary sources. Why is that not the case here?

Secondly, the extreme reticence of all relevant parties (namely the BBC and Stonewall) to take part in the the podcast is a huge part of story of this podcast and it's production. I'm trying to use neutral language, but it's hard. Eievie (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles, according to policy, are supposed to mainly use secondary sources, though of course using primary sources is fine depending on the context. There are a number of potential problems with the usage of primary sources, outlined here, one of the guidelines for using them is to be cautious about sourcing entire sections to them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Two more things:

The PinkNews one: "PinkNews, whose founder did not take part in the podcast". That's a misquote on your part, the founder did take part. I think that bringing up the participation is giving context to why it's relevant to mention them here.

The BBC one: "even when pressed about implausible that sounded". So I'm specifically referring to this part of an interview:

Emma Barnett: Why didn't anybody from the BBC executive talk to Stephan Nolan, doing the specialist podcast on this? I'm very grateful you're here today, but why didn't a single person go on that podcast?

Rhodri Talfan Davies: I think with hindsight the BBC should've participated in that podcast.

Emma Barnett: Was the BBC scared to go on it?

Rhodri Talfan Davies: No. As you can imagine, Emma, we get hundreds of requests—

Emma Barnett: Oh, come on! You don't get hundreds of requests from a program that's about the governance of the BBC about whether it's been too close to an organization who—in a matter of weeks afterwards—you leave the funding of that organization.

Rhodri Talfan Davies: Emma, I can tell you, we got dozens and dozens and dozens of questions from the Nolan program which we reposed to. There's clearly an issue around the FOI request the Nolan program put in—

Emma Barnett: Freedom of information, for listeners.

Rhodri Talfan Davies: We answered many, many of those questions. We gave an extensive statement. You asked me a straight question: Do I believe the BBC should have participated in the program? I think with hindsight we should've.

In the current draft, I removed the whole thing about the BBC claiming they were just too busy and being pressed on that point, but I do think it's a relevant thing that should be included in some form. How do I summarize this unflattering interview in a way that isn't biased against them? To soft-peddle it, or omit it, also feels biased—biased in their favor this time. Eievie (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Round 3

I'm working on adding more about ARIA boycotts. I clarified a few points about the departments involved, and the FOI request. But some of these objecting listed this time around things I just find confusing:

• There are some secondary sources to be had, but they're mostly about stuff surrounding the podcast. There is virtually nothing in the way of secondary sources reiterating the content of the podcast itself. I was told by @Devonian Wombat: that "It would be great if secondary sources could be found, though that won't hold up the article from being accepted." And I know twitter is like... low-brow, I guess, but I do maintain that's a relevant part of the story and needs to be included.
• There are 2 separate subsection for BBC and Stonewall because they are 2 sperate organizations, who both separately asked to participate and both separately refused to.
• The "colleges" bit used to have the direct quote: “I’ve been broadcasting in Northern Ireland for 25 years with all the bullets and bombs, and I’ve had death threats. Yet really seasoned people were saying: ‘Do you really want to put yourself in the firing line on this?’” But I was told less quotes, so I tried to paraphrase it. Should I go back to the direct quote? Or if I do, will I get dinged for quotes all over again?

--Eievie (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Eievie, I believe Devonian Wombat may have meant that you don't need to exclusively use secondary sources to verify information in the article, but to pass notability guidelines you absolutely need independent and reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject of the article in some depth. The general notability guidelines need to be satisfied. There are some subject specific notability guidelines such as WP:RPRGM and WP:WEBCRIT that may apply in this context, but they typically still require significant coverage in reliable sources. I was simply noting that most of the sources are BBC, Stonewall, and Twitter which simply are not independent of the subject. As far as I can tell, when I declined the draft there were only three sources that might contribute to notability hidden among the primary sources. Now that you've added more sources I don't think you need to worry about notability.

What I was referring to regarding the two separate subsections was not that you had one section for BBC and another for Stonewall. What I was referring to was that you have two subsections for BBC and two for Stonewall. It's not against the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I was just unsure what the purpose was.

My primary concern was that I read through this page and at the end I didn't understand anything about the podcast or even what all the controversy was about. The prose was confusing and vague. The way you have the sentence regarding Nolan's colleagues right now is probably fine, but there needs to be more context in general throughout the article. I was simply pointing out that a large number of the sentences were vague.

Also, my assessment of the page may have been wrong. I'm a volunteer and I'm not perfect. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Devonian Wombat and MJL have different opinions. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: My only concern was the extended use of quotes. Those are now gone, I think; so I'm fine with anything at this point.
I did find three other sources that Eievie has not made use of: Metro (not reliable woops), The Times, and The Belfast Telegraph.
That being said, I do think the page meets the notability guidelines, so if it was re-submitted I would've accepted it. The NPOV issues (which I haven't reviewed) could be addressed while the article is in mainspace. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just going to re-submit and accept it. I'll tag it with {{POV|date=June 2022}}, but I'm really not seeing a compelling reason to hold this draft up any longer (I draftified it seven months ago). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with MJL's decision to publish it to mainspace and add the maintenance tag, especially since more secondary sources have been added since I declined the draft. Thank you. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

How best to cite politician responses?

There have been a number of MPs and other political figures that have made responses to this podcast, but most of those responses appear to be on their official Twitter accounts. Since we're citing and directly attributing the opinions to said persons, is this an instance where those primary sources are fine? While secondary sources are preferred, the ways they are discussing these politicians are either statements of "Politician X responded" and then not saying what they said or they're doing that embedded tweet mechanic which I find no better than the primary source itself. Since that is what it is anyways. Silverseren^C 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Funny enough, the only political group that has published an actual article response instead of just using social media is the Socialist Party of Northern Ireland: [1] Silverseren^C 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Primary vs secondary sources have been an ongoing issue with this page. There are secondary sources about Nolan Investigates, but most of them are responses. For the section that's about the content of the podcast, there aren't any secondary sources that regurgitate or repeat the content of the podcast. Then if I'm not really supposed to cite the podcast itself, I don't know who I could cite for the themes section, for example. In the response section there are more secondaries, but still secondary sources can get things wrong (for example, saying the podcast was nominated for 4 awards, when actually it was Nolan's work in general that was nominated for 4, the podcast accounting for only 2 of those). I find wikipedia's rule about secondary sources kind of baffling to begin with. In school I was taught that primary sources are better. I don't know; I would just cite what you can, primaries included. If secondary sources on this podcast are written as time goes on, they can always be added later? Eievie (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)