Talk:Saipansucks.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saipansucks.com article.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.


Contents

[edit] RfC responses

Can you make the disagreement, short and clear? I don't want to read pages of history to see what the issue is.Wjhonson 16:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is read the link to history I posted at RfC and comment whether it crosses the line into WP:OR and/or is poorly sourced. :-) C.m.jones 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I sent you an e-mail. C.m.jones 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I did try to read the history, it was like nine billion words long and I fell off my chair. But I disagree with the below editor. If the HTML code says "Author John Brown" then the Author is John Brown. This is not Original Research, rather it is "source-based research". OR is the *creation* of material, not the discovery that someone else has created material. Wjhonson 15:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the ridiculoulsy long history. I am obviously a noob around here. I appreciate the viewpoint you are giving. I have tried to summarize the issue in the Author section, below, so we can perhaps all come to a solid consensus. C.m.jones 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the website author is anonymous yet you have a source that says the author has been identified. This source stops short of naming him. You then think you have discovered his name in the HTML code for the site and the WHOIS records. You want to know if it is OR to present this information. Is this correct?

If so then yes this is original research. You need a secondary source that names the author directly. For controversial topics, a secondary source is essential. It is normal to pay web designers to create web pages for content authors. It is normal practice for anonymous website authors to use other peoples' names on WHOIS records or even pseudonyms. So it is not clear that the name you identified is the content author. Curtains99 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You have understood the issues accurately. I do appreciate your input very much! C.m.jones 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a pretty good wiki page. Plenty of good sources. I don't see anything to change from first glance. Curtains99 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem in stating that the HTML code of this website has of November 29, 2006 has the following data: "<o:Author>[First and Last Name]</o:Author>, or that the WHOIS record states that the administrative contact is a "[First and Last Name]" from [Name of State]. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(May I ask why did you refactor the names? These are obviously there and not secret) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the refractoring was probably a good idea - see my comments below. C.m.jones 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Having said that and given that there seems to be a legal dispute in place, I would be cautious about stating the name of that person, as it could have been easily spoofed. An elegant way to do this would be to say: "As of November 29, 2006 the HMLT code of the the site pages provides a name under the "author" tag. The same name is found on the WHOIS record for the domain name." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography of a living person

Why has this page been tagged as the bio of a living person when it is about a website? Can I remove these tags? Curtains99 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it because the ethical considerations were the same. I will remove it. C.m.jones 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nine cites in a row!?

Sheesh, do something about that would you? That's non-standard practice for sure. --SeizureDog 05:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I will intersperse them in the next when I have time or any other person can. C.m.jones 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. C.m.jones 10:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Author of Saipan Sucks

Additions to the Author section of this article should be discussed here and consensus reached *BEFORE* adding them to the article. This is to ensure that any additions fully meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability, use of reliable sources, and no original research. CyberAnth 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


This could be easily to the article as it is verifiable information coming directly from the website in question: ""As of November 29, 2006 the HMLT code of the the site pages provides a name under the "author" tag. The same name is found on the WHOIS record for the domain name." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that since this is a living person we are speaking of, we should follow closely the ethical considerations contained in WP Biography of Living Persons. I think we should build a solid consensus from multiple expereinced editors before naming names, to avoid trouble.
I myself am undecided. Your arguments for conservative inclusion of the name appear sound. It is verifiable that the name appears in the HTML code and WHOIS.
Yet arguments also appear sound stating that, on controversial topics (which, make no mistake, this is) a citable, reliable secondary source is needed. Anyone, including a malicious person, could place any name they want to into HTML tags and WHOIS registrations. LOL, one bitorrent site's HTML code shows George W. Bush as the author, for example. Including the name without a reliable secondary source could perhpas imply more than it does, equalling a bias.
So we have two viewpoints, which I hope we can all agree is fine and good. I just myself want to do what is right, and I assume all others so far do too.
The core question appears to be:
Do the editor actions of viewing the HTML source and typing in the saipansucks.com domain into a WHOIS search constitute WP:OR, since no secondary source has reported such actions as a way to view potential author information?
C.m.jones 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should not mention the name, because the name may be spoofed, but there is nothing wrong to say that the webpages have an author tag, and that the same name appears on WHOIS, as these are easily verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I will add this text to the Author section:

"As of November 29, 2006 the HTML code of the the site pages provides a name under the "author" tag. The same name is found on the WHOIS record for the domain name.""

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long cite

The cite from the website text is way too long. It would be best if rather than copying and pasting such a large quote (which is already available directly from the site itself), that the views expressed in the website are summarized. WP is not a mirror of websites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. I will fix it when I have time. C.m.jones 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

Summary of my edits:

  1. Moved article to the website name Saipansucks.com as this is an article about that website and not about if Saipan sucks or not;
  2. NPOVed several entries;
  3. Removed long quote from the "About" page. Readers can get that text directly from the site;
  4. Moved some wikilinks from the text and into the "See Also" section, and alpha-sorted it;
  5. As the authorship issue is a current event, added corresponding tag;
  6. Reformatted spacing and unicodified the text.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I created recognize that there is a re-direct to this page from Saipan Sucks. This is because good because most of the Category:Political_websites are not titled by the domain name but the title of the website. C.m.jones 10:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Political websites belonging to an organization, mostly use the name of an organization and that is OK. But using the name of this website is inappropriate as it asserts a POV and that is unacceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/i/Talk%7ESaipansucks.com_5ea2.html"