Talk:The Vancouver Observer

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I do have a close connection to the subject matter: I'm the founder of the site. I was very bothered by how basic and boring the last entry was, how little story it told, how little history it provided and have attempted to add facts from a neutral point of view. Just the facts. I've saved the whole thing, so if you feel its appropriate to delete it, by all means do. I'm an award-winning writer/journalist, however, and I really do know the difference between a fact and a claim. Also, I've provided third party reference materal. But I bow to the collective wisdom of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.240.199 (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't worry about deletion. From a glance and from my experience, I don't think it's in any jeopardy. Also, please don't be offended by the COI tag (I'm not assuming that you are). It's standard for articles to be tagged with a COI tag until it can be checked. I skimmed some of the awards and recognition that you have received and assumed that your very familiar with the concepts like a COI, facts, claims, opinions, etc. but if you want to see how WP regards editing an article you're associated with, you can check out WP:COI and more specifically what Wikipedians suggest doing to avoid a COI at WP:AVOIDCOI.

The issue should be taken care of soon. I don't anticipate there being any major issues with your edits other than a few external links being removed per WP:EL. I'll be around in case you have any questions or comments. OlYeller^Talktome 18:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the concerns expressed. Inline citations have been added, from reliable, third-party sources, and relevance has been established. When will the warnings be removed? WetcoastBC (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The page looks much better now, thanks. The Interior (Talk) 00:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UBC Blogs

I've removed these two as they only mention VO in passing. As journalism school blogs, they're fairly good sources, so I'll leave them here for now. The Interior (Talk) 23:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Hermida: UBC J-School up for Three Online Publishing Awards, Alfred Hermida's University of British Columbia blog September 23, 2010
Alfred Hermida: Prof. Hermida's blog wins Canadian online award, Alfred Hermida's University of British Columbia blog October 21, 2010

Controversy section

The sourcing in the section is problematic, and I support its removal. Both sources are blogs, not attached to any news orgs. (WP:NEWSBLOG), and shouldn't be used for major statements regarding living persons. The Interior (Talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. However, this doesn't seem to be the only source reporting this. Pulitzer's website even specifically mentions that it discourages and sometimes requires people to stop mentioning that they were nominated (see here). She, you, and I could all say we've been nominated by sending in a nomination. This situation (people claiming to have been nominated) is something that's covered relatively regularly. My quest is, is it worth mentioning here? I mean, it's fairly easy to see from the cover and posters (see here) that the rather idiotic claim was made, does anyone care outside of this one blog writer? If not, being true doesn't mean that it should be included in the article, especially with this amount of weight gievn the shoer length of the article. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, anyone can be nominated. "Nominated finalists" have been announced since 1980 and can be find, along with winners, here. She's not listed. The claim is similar to me saying that I was a US Presidential candidate because at least one person used me as a write-in. Again, I don't know if that it warrants mentioning in the article. That's the only thing I'm concerned with here. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the whole "nominated for pulitzer" thing is dodgy, and may well be a misleading claim on the publisher's part. However, I don't feel comfortable including a mention of the issue with this sourcing. I wasn't aware of either of these blogs before this, and looking into them, I'm not inspired with confidence of impartiality or editorial control. V.O. takes a certain political position, these blogs (or least CityCaucus) appear to be on the opposing side of that position. To me, this appears to be sour grapes among politicos, and something we shouldn't involve ourselves with. The second sentence is really just a smear from a competitor, as far as I can see. If this comes up in an actual news source, I won't oppose it. The Interior (Talk) 00:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's most likely some sour grapes motivating this situation. I can use reliable primary sources to show that the information is true (that being nominated doesn't really mean anything) but I think you're right that it's not really something that any reliable secondary source gives weight to, meaning that we shouldn't either.

I'll look to see if any reliable secondary sources have given the issue coverage but if I can't find anything, I'll remove any mention of this issue. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I was done looking, Linda removed the text. I haven't and don't think that I will find anything but I found that edit to be rather disappointing, given her conflict of interest. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on Yellar's talk page: With respect, I don't see how you could possibly call the genuinewitty blog a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. The source is 1) questionable 2) self-published. See in particular "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". Please explain why the entry in question qualifies as an exception to "never"?

In other words, this source is not usable period. Without a reliable source including the claim in question is a violation of WP:OR (Original Research). Also, Wikipedia has rules regarding information about living persons see WP:BLP ie "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards" so I'm sorry Yeller but the edits are out of bounds on a number of levels. If a credible source (ie not a personal attack blog) publishes this information then you can use that as a source but until then adding the claim violates a whole raft of important wikipedia rules. Please do not reinsert the material with an attack blog as your source and please don't engage in Original Research. 71.19.174.142 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey. You finally decided to use the talk page.

It wasn't original research but I guess I'm not surprised that a person with 12 edits might make that mistake.

As mentioned before, the information is a fact and not research used to back up an opinion. As I told you before, the claim is easily verifiable. Nominees are never announced. While someone may have told her that she was nominated, it's not exactly something to be posting on the front of your book. I could nominate myself right now online if I wanted. It's even mentioned on their website that people should cite that they were simply nominated. The question was whether or not it should be included and had you participated here instead of edit warring and leaving angry edit summaries, you would have seen that both The Interior and I feel that including the information is giving undue weight to an issue.

In the future, please use the talk page of an article if you find that you and another editor disagree. It would have saved a good deal of time and effort that would have been better spent improving other parts of the encyclopedia. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this decision. Linda Solomon came to Vancouver and quickly built-up name recognition in the city by publishing a book about Vancouver that said (on the front cover) it was written by a Pulitzer nominated writer. The Vancouver Observer was built on the premise of the book (she also taught Journalism courses as a 'Pulitzer nominated' writer.) This information is highly relevant to people who want to understand the history of the Observer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genuinewitty (talk • contribs) 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted but Wikipedia doesn't publish the opinions of its editors (except in cases where an editors opinions are notable but even then, it has to be published elsewhere). While it's a fact that nominees are never announced (outside of finalists and winners, which she is not) and it's a fact that calling oneself "Pulitzer nominated" basically doesn't means anything, that it's important to anyone hasn't been established. Covering it in the article based on one blog post would be giving the issue undue weight. If several news sources covered the issue, one would have an argument for including it in the article. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)We look at coverage in publications meeting our in-house reliable sources guideline to gauge whether an issue is important enough to include in an article. No offense to your work, but standalone blogs don't usually make the grade, especially when the topic involves a living person, for which we have an even more stringent policy: WP:BLP. You're also going to have to change your username, as accounts can't represent realworld websites or blogs, see: WP:PRODNAME. Best, The Interior (Talk) 23:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to jump in here but OlYellar's view of what Original Research is wrong. The policy states:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.^[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

He also misunderstands what "verifiable" means in the Wikipedia context - the example he uses is actually an example of synthesis (see WP:SYNTH). 130.63.217.43 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice quote. Thank you. Did you miss the several links I provided that verify the information presented that calling oneself "nominated" basically means nothing? They're directly from the Pulitzer website. Thanks, again, for proving my point. And yes, we agree that it's undue weight as has been mentioned several times in this conversation. You need to calm down and start reading what other people write instead of blindly reverting and being so entrenched in your position that you can't see that people agree with you on some points. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SYNTH because if you apply that information to an individual without a reliable source that names the individual then you're engaging in Original Research and Synthesis in violation of Wikipedia rules. 130.63.217.43 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it several times over the several years that I've edited Wikipedia. Per the quote above, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." I did that. Several times. As for undue weight, I don't know how to be more clear with you: I AGREE. I AGREE. I AGREE. I AGREE. I AGREE. I think I just doubled the number of times I've stated that. I've said it numerous times above. I AGREE.

What are you looking to do here? What is the point of you continuing to comment? Are you doing this for yourself or for me because I have no idea what it is you want me to do. I don't see what outcome you're looking for. Unless you actually have something new to bring up, I won't be responding here anymore. Don't bother answering my questions here as they were rhetorical and I don't care what the answers are unless you want something about the article changed. If you want something changed, just state exactly what it is you want changed.

I'm moving on to use the resource that is time in more useful areas of WP. Have a great rest of the day, everyone. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeller calm down. From what I can see in Wikipedia your interpretation of the Original Research rules is wrong. If you don't believe me go to the admin page and ask. You don't have to go from sarcasm to apoplexy just because someone says you're wrong about something.130.63.230.164 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this on topic, please. This page is for discussing specific changes to the article. The Interior (Talk) 17:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pulitzer's lists all of their nominees on a database that can be searched on their website (follow this link). They make it very clear on their FAQ that, unless someone has been designated a nominee they aren't. Is it not enough to link to Pulitzer's search page and tell readers that the information can be confirmed this way? Thanks for your patience, I'm still very much a newbie here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregRenouf (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, the purpose of Wikipedia is not for people to pursue their vendettas or to use articles to bully and harass people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotch (talk • contribs) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, your link is to "nominated finalists". Anyone can be a nominee which is why the claim holds no water. I could literally, right this second, go nominate myself online. "Finalists" are what are announced. Regardless, for it to be mentioned in the article, someone would need to show that people actually care that she's saying it and so far, it appears that only one blogger cares. Mentioning it would be giving the issue undue weight. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotch, who said he has a vendetta? What an odd thing to accuse someone you don't know of, simply for asking a question. Please try to settle down and assume good faith in the future. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I should assume Greg isn't the author of the genuinewitty blog that someone is trying to use as a source in this article and he isn't trying to extend into wikipedia the personal vendettas and attacks he uses the blog for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotch (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have some proof for your claim, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's the basis of WP:AGF. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never met Solomon, nor have I had any dealings with her organization. Yes, I am genuinewitty- I was told by a Wikipedia admin I need to change my userID because one is not allowed to use the name of a website or product as their user name- not hiding anything. I believe it is in the public interest for people to know this information- when/if it is published I will revisit this page. Thanks to everyone for dealing with my Wikipedia newbie learning curve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.240.142 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist — somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online — even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy — so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.

[Exists-1] By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist — somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online — even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy — so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.

[1]