User talk:AltonPeter
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Stephen Green (Christian Voice). However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you.--Cúchullain t/c 21:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is properly sourced. Is there a problem with sourcing clips on You Tube?--AltonPeter (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Youtube clips are not reliable sources. Especially for biographies of living people, you need published third-party sources to write the article.--Cúchullain t/c 21:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay I will change the references to reference the original programme, although I think you are incorrect in your blanket assumption that You Tube clips can never be reliable, since the clip in question is taken directly from the original programme and features untainted footage, it is reliable. Also in some cases material may have originally been published on You Tube.--AltonPeter (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The original programs may be reliable, but clips on youtube are not, they may have been altered for instance. If you have more questions about what is to be included (or excluded) in the article, bring it up on the article's talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I take your point, although what would you do if (in another case) the original material was posted on You Tube - would it be okay in that instance?--AltonPeter (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I responded to your message at my talk page Antonio Lopez (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I take your point, although what would you do if (in another case) the original material was posted on You Tube - would it be okay in that instance?--AltonPeter (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The original programs may be reliable, but clips on youtube are not, they may have been altered for instance. If you have more questions about what is to be included (or excluded) in the article, bring it up on the article's talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Questionable sources such as youtube can be used as primary sources about themselves, but only if they fit certain criteria; so a youtube movie might be used as a source about that youtube movie, but not anything else.--Cúchullain t/c 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- We seem to have bad luck with crossing over, at the same time you wrote this I was responsing to you on your talk page.--AltonPeter (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I know what you mean, that's why many users like to keep discussions in one page. Antonio Lopez (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I responded, click some of the links Cuchullain provided in his first message Antonio Lopez (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I know what you mean, that's why many users like to keep discussions in one page. Antonio Lopez (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- We seem to have bad luck with crossing over, at the same time you wrote this I was responsing to you on your talk page.--AltonPeter (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Questionable sources such as youtube can be used as primary sources about themselves, but only if they fit certain criteria; so a youtube movie might be used as a source about that youtube movie, but not anything else.--Cúchullain t/c 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)