Talk:Cheri DiNovo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
Contents |
[edit] Allegations and biographical representation
Please review this video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COKHE4BjlIM This is Cheri DiNovo speaking about her history. If you find other video footage, I encourage adding those links, too. I do not intend to slander. I have not seen the entire interview, but I'm sure she spoke about her current values throughout the rest of the show. I am not against her... in the video are her own words. If someone has the complete interview, PLEASE include it all as a link. Just presenting what people actually say. erin k. 07:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Note to our anonymous Australian friend: Wikipedia policy is quite clear on these matters. Read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. — you cannot cite primary sources such as court records or marriage certificates as sources on a Wikipedia article, if the claims you're attempting to support have not already been published in a reliable media source. If you want this information to go into DiNovo's Wikipedia article, you're going to have to try to sell a media outlet on the story first; until you can cite the exact publication date, page number and name of a newspaper, or the exact broadcast date and program name of a television news program, which has publicly reported the claims in question, they cannot be placed in the Wikipedia article. (And, for the record, the onus is on you to provide the citation; it is not sufficient to say "it's out there, look it up".) Whether the claims are true or not is irrelevant; Wikipedia policy explicitly prohibits publishing claims that have not already appeared in documentable and verifiable media sources. Wikipedia does not do primary research — unless and until an external media source publishes proof that DiNovo has falsified elements of her biography, Wikipedia cannot make any such claim. Our job is not to break news; our job is to summarize what other sources have already published or reported. Bearcat 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- poor taste personal attack by anonymous editor has been removed from this section. Look in history if you really must view it. Abtract 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Note also that you do not have a right to remove administrators' comments from this page. Bearcat 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- The person who added those comments claimed that the information was in the "Toronto Star archives" at one point. If that's true, he should have found exactly where it is on the Toronto Star website. Esn 06:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Continued video dialog
The source is video of DiNovo speaking about herself~ it is an interview. It aired first on VisionTV in a program called Vision360, on March 9, 2006. The video IS the source. erin k. 07:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a primary source. It's exactly as you stated above, erin, when you said the video was her "own words". Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means it can only call upon verified, reliable secondary sources for its data. As such, this video doesn't have anything to offer the article, even if it were a full reproduction of the interview, instead of a sensationalist excerpt of dubious intent. BFD1 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I was really wondering about that. Thanx for letting me know, and removing it. Certainly no harm intended, was only matching name with video. erin k. 01:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I understand! Thanks for being cool about it. BFD1 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
I reverted this article to a protected page, because it is clear that she is under attack, and will be until at least the October 10, 2007, the Ontario General Election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abebenjoe (talk • contribs).
[edit] More on the video
I am coming rather late to this debate but I can see no reason why this video clip cannot be inserted in the article ... indeed there is every reason why it should. It is not original research because it has been published (discovering an unpublished video interview would be OR); it is not one sided since she is clearly using her early life experiences to promote her agenda of offering support to the poor. I just don't see the problem. Maybe someone can provide better wording, but I suggest something like the following should be inserted into the article:
"In a TV interview, taped before she was elected and first shown on VisionTV March 9th 2006, DeNovo used her early life experiences with drugs to further the cause of poor youth".[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 April 2007
- I agree. It's ridiculous to not include this as a source. The rules against primary sources are intended to protect someone drawing interpretations from a primary source that weren't originally there, or from claiming to have "first-hand knowledge" of an event. If she posts a video of herself and says something about herself, that's the best kind of source there is (especially if she's talking about the not-so-great parts of her life). In other articles, statements by people on their own websites about themselves are frequently used. I shall quote from the guideline page: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." Esn 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- By far the biggest problem with the video interview is that it is on Youtube and is almost certainly posted up there illegally. If someone can find exactly when and where that segment aired, or find that clip on an official website of whoever owns the copyright, it may then be possible to cite it. But yes, as a source this video clip is definitely allowed. Esn 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that with primary sources editors are all too inclined to make generalizations or inferences and pass it them off as fact. As with your suggestion above, did Cheri state she was "using" her early life experiences to further a "cause", or did you infer that based on what she said? At most I think you can quote what she says in the video word for word in the article. No one can argue with that, as it is now a matter of public record. But you cannot make conclusions, inferences, interpretations, or summaries without being challenged on original research. In this particular example, you are not allowed to attribute motive to her words, as in "DeNovo used her early life experiences to further the cause...". As such I would reject your suggestion above, or any other suggestion which attempts to generalize, contextualize, or simplify a primary source. Quote it if you want to, though. BFD1 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I should add there is one other problem though. Quoting only part of a source document, e.g. a 30 second clip from a longer interview, can be subject to serious POV problems. An editor could claim that in quoting one section and not another you are introducing bias into the article. Something to keep in mind. BFD1 14:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes I take your point about not interpreting her words which clearly I was ... also apologies for not signing earlier.Abtract 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SDP of C ... Copied from User talk:Abtract
Stop adding Social Democratic Party of Canada to her first line. It is supposed to be social democratic to describe what kind of politics she follows, not her party affiliation. The link you keep adding is for a defunct party that existed in the 1930s and has nothing to do with her.Abebenjoe 07:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info; it might be better to have this conversation on Talk:Cheri DiNovo so I am going to copy it there for any continuation.Abtract 08:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] $10 minimum wage campaign section
I'm in favour of reverting this edit and in keeping the heading of the section as it was, namely $10 minimum wage campaign. DiNovo is basically famous for her involvement in the minimum wage campaign, not for comments she made on a tv show that supposedly reveal her "attitude to poverty" (By the way, that should be "attitude toward poverty") The header $10 minimum wage is much more friendly towards scan readers who are looking for information particular to her high-profile campaign, plus it is perfectly descriptive, and much more useful as a header IMO. Anyone can figure from her involvement in this campaign that she might have an attitude towards poverty. Renaming the header thusly is like changing the name of the section on General Relativity in Albert Einstein's article to "Einstein knew physics". BFD1 14:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my suggestion into account, Abtract. I just have one last concern, which is that the new heading, Poverty,drugs and the $10 minimum wage campaign, puts WP:Undue weight on her previous interactions with drugs. It's really not all that important, certainly not deserving of a headline. For example, there's no mention of cocaine use in the article for George W. Bush, and, while drugs are mentioned in George Smitherman, there's not a big bold banner drawing attention to it. BFD1 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. This edit works for me. Cheers.BFD1 19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- she sounds like a good woman.Abtract 22:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ontndp.jpg
Image:Ontndp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
