Talk:Justin Chadwick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Inline citations

To answer your question, in-line citations are helpful to readers who will want to know the source of the material. Articles should have more than a single source of information. I added the tag to be helpful and encourage the additional information. I would have appreciated your having left it on the page until the matter was resolved, that is, until changes were made. This is not personal. It is about making the Wikipedia entries the best they possibly can be. A little mollusk (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More about citations

Bradv15 persists in unnecessarily adding requests for citations. Chadwick's film credits can be found in two of the external links provided, and most have their own Wikipedia articles. Why should they have to be referenced in the article? This does not appear to be a common format in the hundreds of entertainment-related articles I've read. MovieMadness (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You have removed requests for citations several times without discussion or improvement to the article. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Please refer to WP:BLP, especially where it says that every statement needs a reliable, verifiable source. My requests were not criticism of you or your work, they simply identified areas that could use improvement. I'll leave it to you to restore the three citation-needed requests or to properly source the statements yourself. —BradV 17:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As I already have explained, the statements are sourced in two of the external links provided. Perhaps every statement needs a reliable, verifiable source, but one does not provide the same reliable, verifiable source throughout the article when citing it once is sufficient. There is no need to restore the three citation-needed requests because the statements already are sourced via external links or other Wikipedia articles referencing Chadwick which, according to your logic, should have citation-needed requests as well. I suggest you look at several film-related articles about actors, directors, producers and the like - you will find it is not common practice to list a source following each credit listed. Please allow me to point out your statement "You have removed requests for citations several times without discussion or improvement to the article" is inaccurate because I both added references as requested AND discussed my edits on this page, something you never did yourself. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat this yet again, since you have not grasped what has been written previously by me or by BradV. You are taking this far too personally. The comments are not personal. They are suggestions to improve the content. It took about 15 minutes to find a newspaper article filled with information you could have used with attribution, including quotes from the actor/director. I encourage you to search for additional information in well-known newspapers or magazines that can be incorporated into this article and used as source material. One of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia is the dubious nature of the material. Asking for citations from credible sources and expecting contributors to provide them is one means of alleviating those concerns by the greater public. A little mollusk (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not presume I'm taking anything personally. I'm following the style used in most film-related articles. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, not a movie magazine, so the several quotes you provided solely as a means of padding this article were inappropriate additions. If "it took about 15 minutes to find a newspaper article," may I suggest in the future you take the time to do so instead of simply adding templates and citation-needed requests in lieu of doing the work you expect of other contributors? Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If you are referencing an on-line article that can be accessed by readers, please cite it correctly so by clicking on the link you will be lead directly to it. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Padding? I don't think so. Quotes from the biographic subject are completely within the realm of content for an encyclopedia article, particularly when there are not that many interviews with the subject. For the record, the article was retrieved from a database, not through Google. You are the one who wanted this article so badly. It behooves YOU do to the work instead of removing tags and asking others to do your work. A little mollusk (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are not constructive when they remove blue links, facts about the subject's education, and direct links to the on-line articles referenced. MovieMadness (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for mediation and would respectfully request that you not make any changes to the page until a third party reviews the article. A little mollusk (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I already asked an administrator to intercede. I feel your comments "Disagreement about added information and need for citations from a wider variety of sources. Originator of the article has taken citations tags off on numerous occasions." at Wikipedia:Third opinion are very misleading. If you want this matter to be mediated, please present it fairly.
First of all, I removed the citation tags added by User:Bradv15 AFTER I included two additional references and added remarks to the discussion page. In response, he reverted my edit with the remark "Stop removing tags without discussing or improving the article" when I had, in fact, improved the article by adding references and discussed my edits on the discussion page, which he clearly did not read.
Second of all, this issue has nothing to do with "added information and need for citations from a wider variety of sources," it has to do with your referencing the same source multiple times and not citing the source in a format that allows the reader to click on the link and go directly to the on-line article, which I believe is the preferred way of listing it. Why should a reader believe the source you cited is accurate or even exists if you don't provide a link to it? The article as it stands as of this writing is referenced that way. If you click on [5], you'll go directly to the source. Is this not preferable to the way you listed the reference in your version here [6]?
Additionally, your repeated edits removed the blue link for Salford, deleted the fact Chadwick graduated from the University of Leicester (mentioned in the Observer article you nicely provided), added personal quotes which are not encyclopedic in nature, replaced "Chadwick" with "He" at paragraph starts, and in general interrupted the flow of the article.
I also would like to mention that, for someone who is so concerned about "a wider variety of sources," you are placing an awful lot of faith in a very brief article in the December 30, 2007 edition of The Observer, which you cited four times and is the only source for the information you added, most of which was merely quotes by Chadwick. May I suggest you look at articles related to the Wikipedia film project? I have yet to read any that include quotes by the subject. Perhaps this is common in biographical articles in other fields, but it doesn't seem to be in the area of film. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


This is the first time that I have had to use arbitration. I edited the comments to comply with the format after seeing my mistake. I am not going to respond further in hopes of defusing the situation and to allow time for a third party to reply. A little mollusk (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

As the Wikipedia guides for Layout, Citing sources, and External links explain, references and citations are distinct from external links. Any sources which are used as references should be in the references section, not in the external links section.

I am sure I've missed some of the remaining details in this dispute, so please post here about what they are. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Material attributed to the biographic subject, specifically quotes stated by him regarding his choice of projects, was deleted on the grounds that it was not "encyclopedic" to add quotes. Also material stating that his early acting jobs enabled him to begin making his own short films was deleted. This information was deleted with the citations. And these "undo" actions were being requested at the same time other edits were being made, which resulted in the situation we now have.
The source article in question was retrieved by me from a subscription newspaper/newswire database in the spirit of cooperation and in order to assist in providing internal citations and substance. This contribution was dismissed as "padding." It was also asserted that any citation be available online. In my experience, Wikipedia sources vary widely and include printed source materials as well as those found online.
The other issue outstanding is the repeated deletion of tags placed by others, including speedy deletion, citations, and other tags.
If I can help answer any questions, I'd be happy to do so. A little mollusk (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to all involved that the disagreements here were normal; it really needn't have become so heated from friction. I think you all want a good article, and that's the most important thing. It's past my (self-imposed) bedtime, but I'll be back in the morning :-) — Athaenara ✉ 05:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid A little mollusk either has misinterpreted my explanations for the edits I made or unintentionally has misrepresented the dispute here. Please allow me to respond to his statements above and perhaps clarify my intent.
  • Mollusk refers to "the repeated deletion of tags placed by others, including speedy deletion, citations, and other tags." First of all, a tag for "speedy deletion" never was applied here, so I don't know why he has mentioned it. Let's keep the facts as accurate as possible, please. The citations for references were removed only after the edits made deemed them no longer applicable, i.e., in-text references were added and therefore the tags requesting them were removed. This seems to be a logical action once an alleged problem has been resolved, doesn't it?
  • I did remove quotes attributed to the biographic subject on the grounds they are not encyclopedic. We are not talking about "Give me liberty or give me death" or "I had a dream here." I have found no other film-related articles that include any quotes by the subject. Doesn't each project within Wikipedia have its own set of guidelines? It doesn't appear the film project endorses or encourages the addition of quotes from performers, directors, producers, and the like.
  • Mollusk states I accused him of "padding" by adding data from an article he retrieved from a subscription newspaper/newswire database in the spirit of cooperation and in order to assist in providing internal citations and substance. This is blatantly untrue. I said the addition of the subject's quotes seemed like padding. I would never object to the addition of biographical details found in a reliable source.
  • Mollusk also states, "It was also asserted that any citation be available online. In my experience, Wikipedia sources vary widely and include printed source materials as well as those found online." I never "asserted" any such thing. Clearly printed source materials are welcome. The point I have been trying to make - which Mollusk has had difficulty grasping - is that if an on-line source is used it should be cited in such a manner that the reader can access it if he wants to do so. He has repeatedly changed the way I cited a reference from a manner in which it can be accessed to one in which it cannot. How does that add to the value of the article?
  • Mollusk has accused me of deletions when he himself made several edits that removed the blue-linking of words and the subject's education background. Apparently instead of actually reading my edits he simply was using the "undo" option.
  • The fact that any sources which are used as references should be in the references section, not in the external links section, has not been in dispute here. I do wonder how often the same reference must be repeated. I can understand citing a printed source more than once because you can cite the different pages on which the various facts attributed to that source can be found. But isn't once sufficient if it's presented so it can be accessed on-line and the reader easily can determine which material in the article came from that source?
Thank you for this opportunity to clarify the issues at hand. MovieMadness (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I would like to express my concern that too much faith as been placed in the December 2007 Observer article by Katie Toms, which consists of only eleven sentences. What makes me most suspicious about the accuracy of this source is the fact it is the only one cited that lists EastEnders as one of Chadwick's directing credits. Considering the enormous popularity of this series, wouldn't Fandango.com and IMDb list this as one of his credits if he had in fact directed any epipsodes? I intentionally excluded EastEnders from the article because I could find no other sources backing Toms' statement. Unless it can be verified by at least one other reliable source, I think it should be removed. MovieMadness (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This article in The Stage which referred to it ("The director of the first tranche of episodes [of Bleak House] is Justin Chadwick, who has directed EastEnders, Red Cap and Spooks and is expected to tell the story in a dynamic way.") is one of several other sources.
MovieMadness, you might want to read the Wikipedia pages about civility, wikiquette, and assuming good faith. The devotion of so much space and text to criticisms of another editor strays a bit off the point of article improvement. — Athaenara ✉ 19:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
All my comments were extremely polite and very civil. Unfortunately, I needed to devote as much text and space as I did in order to defend myself against Mollusk's inaccurate accusations. I find it extremely unfair that you chose to single me out for criticism when he was the one who distorted (I will assume, in good faith, unintentionally) what transpired here before you joined the discussion. How is that "assuming good faith" on your part? Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)