Talk:Saipan Sucks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.
Micronesia
Micronesia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Micronesia, which collaborates on articles related to Micronesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saipan Sucks article.
Article policies
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.


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)

  • That information was not there at the time I edited the article, and yet no one stated any objections here. Why is that?

It is pertinent, and I believe that it IS possible to mention satisfactorily who the site's HTML and WHOIS information indicate is the author, and in connection with the former CNMI Attorney, by simply stating something to the effect that all names of the aforementioned are the same, while not actually claiming that they are in fact the same person. Adrigon 14:46, 19 March 2007 (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)

[edit] Forums and blogs

WP:RS#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet states,

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources.

In the Intro, Jossi removed the struck through portion.

The website seeks to call attention to what it sees as systemic societal corruption in the CNMI. It has been in existence since 2001 and has been reported in a variety of ways in local,[1] [2] regional,[3] [4] and international[5] newsprint and magazine outlets, on ABC Radio Australia,[6] and Internet forums[7] [8] and blogs,[9] [10] including the personal blog of travel book author David Stanley.[11]

No post has been used as a reference. Using a forum or blog posting as a source for information is very different from citing blog and forum examples as a reference to a mere assertion that the website has been discussed on forums and blogs.

I have thereore reverted the edits.

C.m.jones 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is an unusual interpretation of policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reuse of sources

There are four sources that are cited twenty(!) times as supporting material for text in this article. This is an article about a website, not about what four newspaper articles say about that website. New sources need to be found, or otherwise minimize the use of these four sources throughout the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

An article about a website that cannot really site the website itself means the secondary sources must be relied upon. Even so, they are cited so many times because of simple redundant citing more than anything else. C.m.jones 04:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It should be a lot better now. C.m.jones 06:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive citation cleanup

This article is a citation NIGHTMARE. I am writing this as I work on it.

First of all, as of this moment, there are for some reason two different links to two different pages with different content which are BOTH listed as "reference 10", bringing into question which is which as cited in the article, and ergo the accuracy of each following reference's number as well.

The content of citations currently listed as references "14" and "16" are identical except for their URLs.

Citations currently listed as references "13", "15" and "17" are dead or dead-end links.

Randi Bjornstad, author of the article used as the "reference 3" citation linking to the "FYI News Service" is a Eugene, Oregon-based freelance editorialist, and the "FYI News Service" website is apparently an archive for her articles, stating that "Each week, FYI News Service distributes Randi Bjornstad's Capital Eye column to small newspapers across the country". Erroneously, this was used as a citation for the claim that saipansucks' existence has been reported in "international" newsprint and magazine outlets, although her editorials appear in neither. In addition to that, upon googling her cited article mentioning saipansucks, I found no evidence that that particular editorial had been published in any newsprint or magazine outlet, in the US or elsewhere. All the websites it returned relevant to both "Randi Bjornstad" and "saipansucks" only returned pages mirroring the saipansucks article (and its previous versions) here at Wikipedia. Since that was the only place it was used as a citation, and was used erroneously, it has been removed both from that sentence and from the references list.

The last sentence of the first paragraph stated that "the website has been the subject of intense debate and scrutinity [sic] by the CNMI government, who has threatened to sue the website's author" and used reference 9 to cite this. However, that citation's article is comprised only of government officials who in fact decline to debate or scrutinize the subject, "intensely" or otherwise, citing the anonymity of the website's author as their reason. However, the legal action mentioned has a different, accurate citation, so I have removed the erroneous citation but kept and re-worded the phrase.

The first sentence under the "content" section states what the website "seeks to call attention to", and instead of using a citation which links to those words at the website, it uses a citation which links to an article about the website, which doesn't even contain those words. Likewise, the 2nd sentence under the first paragraph of the section "Content" states that "Press outlets have quoted the following excerpt from the website", and cites references 2, 11, and 12. But the "following excerpt" is quoted in neither reference 11 nor 12--and in fact, reference 11 is the saipansucks website itself. If it's to be included, it should be attached to the excerpt, not the claim about the excerpt. The rest of the "content" section refers only to the website's allegations, and therefore it is redundant, unnecessary, and overkill to cite anything more than the link to the website itself, if even that, since the entire article makes the website's URL clear. It is possible that the attached citations listed as references "10", "11" and "12" are in actuality the references next to "11", "12" and "13" respectively, due to the error of their being two different reference 10s, but in this particular section's case, the aforementioned makes it a moot point.

The line under "Criticism", "the CNMI government has threatened to sue the website's author for libel or defamation", cites reference 13. But as in the previous "content" section, the contents of that reference do not corroborate that statement. In reference 13, now-governor Fitial breaks from his political colleagues to openly condemn the site. The article does not, however, contain anything about possible legal action being taken against the site's author for any reason--libel, slander, or otherwise. And, as in the previous "content" section, there is a possibility that as a result of there being two reference 10s, reference "13" might have actually been "14". But that citation contains nothing about any sort of legal action being taken either, rendering the point moot. Reference 10 (the first one) DOES contain information about this in its news article, and I have put it there.

Reference "12", used as a citation for a quote from the author of saipansucks later in that same paragraph, did not contain that, or any quote from the website's author. The quote is contained in the link to saipansucks, but it seems redundant to link there repeatedly in the article since all the content mentioned as coming from it and its author is located on one single page on that website. However, I've avoided removing any accurately cited references where they do happen to exist, whether or not they seem redundant.

Only one cited link in the first sentence of the second paragraph under "criticism" works, and in that link, the "counter critics" do not use or refer to any of the terms to in that sentence. In reference to the site's tone, they only state that they disagree with it, and give their reasons, which do not include those terms. Furthermore, acknowledging, as the two letters to the editor from residents do, that problems exist on the island does not constitute "counter criticism". Therefore, used here, those terms come off as putting words in those people's mouths, and as excusatory, which is not neutral POV unless those terms can be cited as quotes by the author of saipansucks. I've thus re-worded it and removed the dead links.

The next sentence referring to David Stanley uses a quote by that author, but did not indicate it, which I have, as well as having provided some context. However, I'm not sure it even belongs in the article, as it is completely expository and, rather than qualifying as "criticism", comes off as indirect, speculative, and a secondary attempt to bolster claims about the supposed legitimacy of the site.

"Text anchoring" can be a method of linkspamming, linkspamming is a form of googlebombing, and therefore citing the former two in addition to the latter is superfluous overkill. Citation 18 is, I suspect, what under the references is listed as 17. But the page reference 17 linked to is no longer there. "Citation 19", which is not listed among the references and is what I suspect to be what is listed there as 18--which would make more contextual sense--does not pertain specifically to the saipansucks article and makes no mention of that site or Saipan. It, along with the sentence it's attached to, belong, if anywhere at all, on the article about googlebombing, which is linked to in the article. Thus the sentence and that citation have been removed.

The second sentence under "Author" contains a quote, followed by a citation which does not actually contain that quote. I have inserted the actual quote.

Citation 2 under "Author" does not illustrate or corroborate its sentence's statement--only that the author remains officially "anonymous". Thus it is hardly tantamount to what the sentence proclaimed was a response by the Pacific Daily News "denying" the previous article's "truthfulness". Not only that, it also misleadingly neglects to note that the article cited is in actuality simply a re-print in another publication of the very same, original article previously cited (as reference 1), albeit with a one-line note inserted by the editor of PDN. Thus, upon such clarifications (which I made), both citation 2 in that paragraph and consequently the inclusion of the sentence it is attached to are rendered questionably worthwhile (although I haven't removed them). Furthermore, the 2nd citation which was included as "reference 10" (as of this point, the two 10s are gone and only one remains with that number) is yet another re-print of that same article from Marianas Variety cited as reference 1, this time with not even so much as a one-line editor's note inserted to differentiate any of its content. It is simply a mirror, and has been deleted.

Finally, I want to note that the use of citation tags in such a way, whether intentionally or not gives a specious appearance of credibility to the statements they're attached to by making it seem that certain statements are bolstered by more original sources than actually exist, or by sources which in actuality do not corroborate the statements they're attached to. At best, this is terribly sloppy. At worst, it's intentionally misleading and exemplifies misrepresentation of cited sources' content to a gross degree. Adrigon 14:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)