Talk:TurboTax/Archives/2015

Removal of "TurboTax's database knows your secrets"

I have removed this from the article because 1) it is a clickbate type headline 2) it does not contain any facts rather a claim by a news paper and 3) Wikipedia is NOT news paper. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Mrfrobinson:

You have been stalking me for over a year now, constantly reverting material that I add to articles, nominating many of my articles, categories,redirects for deletion, and initiating RFCs without ever providing policy-based rationale for your actions.

As you well know this is wearing me down. Why are you doing this? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Should a unproven news report regarding the alleged collection of information be included in the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Remove section - I'll remove the section per this discussion. Please don't re-add without further consensus, and especially not without independent verifiablereliable sources. - jc37 06:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

---

As stated above, I have attempted to remove the section about TurboTax knowing and storing personal information and have been met with resistance. The news article that this claim comes from does not state that the allegation is proven nor is it supported by any other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfrobinson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: We shouldn't have a section dedicated to a single source's article-title. Doing a little searching, it looks like this USA Today article currently cited is a "column" rather than from the News section. Other sources (the examiner) focusing on the database that I have found are equally unreliable (The Examiner is like crowd-sourced reporting basically). I tentatively support removing it and replacing it with quality sources[1][2] about the recent FBI investigation, which seems to be what these editorials are sprouting from. This can be covered under Corporate history/Recent History, rather than in a separate section. CorporateM (Talk) 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

to a first approximation, every networked service stores personal information, and I think experience is increasingly showing they are all guilty unless proven otherwise. As for non-networked programs sending back material on a connected network, again nothing of the sort would in the least surprise me. I think to include this sort of content we need actual specific reliable evidence that there is a particularly well documented case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Could you please point me to the paragraph/source you are referring to? --Precision123 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Precision123: If you are referring to The Examiner, I couldn't link to it because it's a blacklisted url. If you're referring to the section that is named after a source, it is here on Wikipedia; the section has the same exact title as the source article here, which as discussed above looks potentially unreliable anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 17:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @CorporateM: (1) The title is inappropriate. (2) The section should be removed. WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper; relying on one columnist or blogger hosted by a newspaper (USA Today), with info that has not been reported elsewhere, is not sufficient for inclusion here. --Precision123 (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is more than one reference always necessary?

Just wondering in light of the previous AFC -- none of the other sections have more than one reference. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)