Talk:Paul Hollingsworth
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2014. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Not listed as a winner
[edit]Hollingsworth is not listed as a Gemini Award winner in the ACCT's database at http://www.academy.ca/CMSPages/PortalTemplate.aspx?aliaspath=/About-the-Academy/Awards-Database. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
His CTV bio says he won a Gemini, as does this news story. Further research is needed to figure out the discrepancy. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 16:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- That news "story" — which is actually just a promotional blurb for a bookstore reading — was almost certainly written directly based on a marketing press release for the book and/or his CTV bio, rather than any actual independent verification of facts by any staff member of Metro itself. The thing is, you asserted more than once in the AFD discussion that checking the ACCT database of its award winners would be original research — but it isn't, it's just plain and simple verification. "Original research" is the creation of interpretations that aren't supported by a source — in this instance, "original research" would be happening if you used the discrepancy as "referencing" to add a section to CTV Television Network or TSN analyzing the trustworthiness of their public relations departments, or to Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television criticizing the accuracy of their awards database. But simply checking the ACCT database for simple confirmation of who it lists as the winners of its awards is not "original research". Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's possible that the CTV bio and the Metro news article are incorrect. It's also possible that the database is incorrect. That's why we need other sources. I don't think it's fair to call a news piece from a reliable third party a "promotional blurb" however. And your claim that it was "almost certainly written directly based on a marketing press release" is pure conjecture on your part. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 19:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is fair to call the piece a "promotional blurb", because if you look at the actual form, content and length of the piece in question, a "promotional blurb" advertising a book launch party is exactly what the piece is — it's not a substantive article about Hollingsworth or the book, but just an announcement of an event. And while it's certainly within the realm of possibilities that the ACCT database contains errors, the balance of probabilities between that and "CTV's promotional department is massaging the facts" is not 50-50. By far the likeliest explanation is that Hollingsworth was the host of the segment in question, but the ACCT gives the award to the producers rather than to every single person who had any involvement at all and CTV is fuzzifying the distinction for public relations purposes. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's possible that the CTV bio and the Metro news article are incorrect. It's also possible that the database is incorrect. That's why we need other sources. I don't think it's fair to call a news piece from a reliable third party a "promotional blurb" however. And your claim that it was "almost certainly written directly based on a marketing press release" is pure conjecture on your part. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 19:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- That news "story" — which is actually just a promotional blurb for a bookstore reading — was almost certainly written directly based on a marketing press release for the book and/or his CTV bio, rather than any actual independent verification of facts by any staff member of Metro itself. The thing is, you asserted more than once in the AFD discussion that checking the ACCT database of its award winners would be original research — but it isn't, it's just plain and simple verification. "Original research" is the creation of interpretations that aren't supported by a source — in this instance, "original research" would be happening if you used the discrepancy as "referencing" to add a section to CTV Television Network or TSN analyzing the trustworthiness of their public relations departments, or to Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television criticizing the accuracy of their awards database. But simply checking the ACCT database for simple confirmation of who it lists as the winners of its awards is not "original research". Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Stating that "further research is needed to figure out the discrepancy" raises the question as to what kind of research can be done to provide a definitive answer as to whether Hollingsworth did or didn't win the award. If one doesn't trust the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television, which gave the Gemini Awards, to list its own award winners correctly, who can one trust to list the award winners correctly? What would be a more authoritative source that we could use to resolve the question? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can we find any secondary sources that say who did win that year? That would help clarify whether there's an error with the database or with the news story. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 02:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Attention Tchaliburton: 1. He did not grow up in Dartmouth. He's from HFX and attended p-9 school at Oxford St school and high school at St. Pats. Also, he left CTV three years ago. There is no longer a link to his CTV bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.130.125 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The claims about where he grew up need to be backed up by references. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 05:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This is comical. I've known him all of his life. We grew up together in Halifax. Dartmouth??? Clearly this Tchaliburton is free styling with the facts. Did anyone attempt to contact him??? Wouldn't that be the only way to verify things, as opposed to relying on crap you're simply googling from shakey internet sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.175.59 (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not original research. See WP:NOR. If he grew up in Halifax then there should be references to verify that. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 01:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
What a joke. "Not original research?" Instead you use secondary garbage that's incorrect? What else should one expect from a crew that apparently trolls online all day inserting incorrect information. So just as an example: he has the G award in his office - I've seen it. So if he came to you (I'm being absurd, I realize) and showed you the award, that wouldn't be good enough because it would be an original presentation of something that is a fact. But, because you can't find "secondary" research to back it up, you would still attach the silly dispute to this article. You should be ashamed. Very sloppy and lack any professional standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.175.59 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- And somebody else can just as easily come along to insert a claim that they went to high school with him in Iqaluit instead of Halifax. As ridiculous as that may sound to you, that exact sort of thing — "he didn't go to the University of Toronto, he went to Stanford!", "she's not from Montana, she's from South Carolina!", etc. — really does happen on Wikipedia all the time. But without reliable secondary sources that have actually been published somewhere, we would have no way to verify which person was telling the truth and which person was lying. Which is also why the fact that you claim to have personally seen his Gemini Award doesn't count for beans either — especially given that there's a discrepancy between what some sources say and what the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television says, we require an even higher standard of verification in published sources rather than an unverifiable claim that some anonymous person whom we don't know from Flintabbatey Flonatin has seen the award for themselves. Furthermore, if you know him personally then you need to read our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- The claim of his Gemini award has been removed again, by User:Octobersurprise11. There was a discussion about whether he could legitimately be entitled to claim credit for a Gemini Award at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hollingsworth. Meters (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- And somebody else can just as easily come along to insert a claim that they went to high school with him in Iqaluit instead of Halifax. As ridiculous as that may sound to you, that exact sort of thing — "he didn't go to the University of Toronto, he went to Stanford!", "she's not from Montana, she's from South Carolina!", etc. — really does happen on Wikipedia all the time. But without reliable secondary sources that have actually been published somewhere, we would have no way to verify which person was telling the truth and which person was lying. Which is also why the fact that you claim to have personally seen his Gemini Award doesn't count for beans either — especially given that there's a discrepancy between what some sources say and what the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television says, we require an even higher standard of verification in published sources rather than an unverifiable claim that some anonymous person whom we don't know from Flintabbatey Flonatin has seen the award for themselves. Furthermore, if you know him personally then you need to read our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)