Talk:Nathalie Paulding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

[edit] reconstitution

As a WP:BLP, I culled the article of all unverified information, striking everything uncited and rebuilt it with 100% referencing. The prior version is here for anybody interested in going back to try and reference any of the information that had been there with reliable sources. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we use IMDB or TV.com as references for her film credits? The two you used have almost nothing on her and I can't see how they are any more reliable than IMDB or TV.com. (I'm assuming you thought they were unreliable which is why you removed references to her being in things like Bully or L&O:SVU.) For An Angel (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
IMDb and TV.com are both user-generated content sites, much like Wikipedia itself; and while, like Wikipedia, they may be generally accurate, they cannot be considered a reliable source due to their ... fluidity? There may be other reliable sources; I would consider Amazon.com one, and may look up the performances listed previously and see if Amazon can coroborate for us. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's strange that you don't want to use IMDB for references for some of her credits such as Bully, when the Wikipedia article for that film has her listed in the Cast section, for which it probably got its information from IMDB. Not to mention she is also listed in the closing credits in the movie. Oh yeah, and Amazon.com doesn't have much of a cast listed (they only listed the actors who played the parents of the main characters, but almost none of the main characters themselves). Would any of these be okay to use? If not I can always take a screencap of her in the movie or of her name in the credits from the DVD for you to see. For An Angel (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't realized you'd followed me to WT:RS, but you picked up on the prevailing consensus. As soon as somebody can find reliable secondary sourcing, we should replace the primary sourcing in there now. I did some cleanup and reformatting, but otherwise left it alone for now. Everything sunny-side-up? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose. But I still don't understand why these references aren't good enough for you. You said that as soon as somebody can find a reliable secondary source, that we should replace the primary source. I don't see why that's necessary. After reading WP:PSTS that you linked to and seeing this:
To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
I can't see how someone can interpret that to mean that if a primary source is the only reference used to say "Nathalie Paulding was in the movie Bully" that is should eventually be replaced by a secondary source. For a simple statement of fact, a secondary source is just not needed. Also, you said below that since BroadwayWorld.com is already used in many articles that it is okay to use. However, when it comes to listing an actors credits, no other website is used more often than IMDB. Yes, it's true that users can submit changes, but that doesn't mean that it is as open to edit as Wikipedia. If you've ever submitted changes to IMDB you'll know that every update is moderated by administrators which means not every change goes through. However, most of the information is not created by the IMDB users but rather by the IMDB staff themselves. For An Angel (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Secondary sources > primary sources, when available. That was discussed at WP:RSN, and WP:PSTS says re: secondary sources: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Also, with a primary source, it's saying "user:For An Angel saw this film and says such and such." While a secondary source is saying "Ben Brantley saw this performance and says such and such." The less the Wikipedia contributor is a part of the sourcing, the better.

IMDb is considered an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, I've seen this come up time and again. It's become consensus that as a user-contributed source (as is TV.com), it doesn't constitute a reliable source. As for BroadwayWorld.com, I used my own discretion and some searching to determine this source's reliability. I saw it well-used throughout Wikipedia as a source, and found no explicit determination to the contrary. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But if I say she was in the movie then I am not giving my opinion or making an evaluative statement about anything, which is what secondary sources are needed for. For example, for movie articles, a simple summary of the plot doesn't need a reference to a secondary source because it's understood that the source is the movie itself. I could upload a screencap of the credits from the movie and that way no one has to go out and rent the DVD to see that she was in it. For An Angel (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this reliable for her theater work? For An Angel (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
While BroadwayWorld.com doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, it is used fairly frequently and in some high-profile articles. I would give it a thumbs-up for reliability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)