Talk:TexAgs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

football
College football Portal

TexAgs is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment Comments
Howdy! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Texas A&M. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Thanks and Gig 'em!
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.

[edit] Citicism

It is a fact that people have those particular criticisms about texags moderation and it has been stated and recorded in particular texags threads. Since forum threads were established as reliable sources earlier in the article, they can be used in the criticism section.Ebmisfit 06:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Where specifically did it state that forum threads were a reliable source? — BQZip01 — talk 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
requested for temporary vandalism protection on this page to cool down the debate. Oldag07 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Forum threads are absolutely never used for sources per WP:RS. I have removed all instances of sources relying on texags forums as well as the entire criticism section as it is unsourced bias. The reason forums are never used as sources are because anyone can make a post anonymously, masquerading as anyone. SpigotMap 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:SELFPUB. Additionally, these are simply showing that these posts actually happened. They are valid references. Give the criticism section a chance to get sources before deletion. — BQZip01 — talk 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
For a further example, if I say "ranger65 posted on 20 September", this claim is easily verified and referenced. — BQZip01 — talk 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The section was based completely on "questionable" sources, one of the guidelines. There IS reasonable doubt as to who published them, it's an internet forum. SpigotMap 02:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources. It is clearly stating they happened on such-and-such a date and shows that the posts actually happened. The source of the information is irrelevant in the last two cases. The others simply show the posts happened on certain dates. — BQZip01 — talk 02:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ranger65 IS SecDef Gates. This is backed up in the newspaper article. His identity is not in question. The other post shows he still posts there and it isn't something that happened in the far past. — BQZip01 — talk 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If this is true, it should be backed up with media claims, not forum claims. That falls under living persons. If it isn't backed up by secondary sources, or can't be verified other then by the own website forum, it ads nothing to this encyclopedia, in which case notability is in question. SpigotMap 02:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. There are two exceptions:
Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability Y Done
  • it is not contentious; Y Done
  • it is not unduly self-serving; Y Done actually it is criticism, not self-serving
  • it does not involve claims about third parties; Y Done all of these claims are backed up by 3rd-party sources
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; Y Done
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; Y Done a "poster" wrote it. No one is attributing it to anyone else.
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources. Y Done not primarily based on it.
— BQZip01 — talk 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
(re-indent) "If this is true, it should be backed up with media claims, not forum claims." It IS backed up by 3rd party claims.
Then what is the point of a forum source? Regardless, the criticism section is what's in question here, it has nothing to do with the secretary. SpigotMap 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, if you will note, I reworded the criticism section "often" to read "sometimes". The identities of the posters is irrelevant in this case because their identities are not asserted in any way (it's not "SecDef Gates said..."). As for Brandon's identity, that can easily be verified by clicking on his name. Would it help to reference that screen as well? — BQZip01 — talk 03:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry...should have mentioned, the "S" by his name is for staff. Would you like that page as well? — BQZip01 — talk 03:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If all you have to support the Criticism section is forum sources, then it will be removed as a section can not exist solely on self published sources, that's why the guideline exists. SpigotMap 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say a section can't be based entirely on self-referenced sources (It is three sentences)? Would it be sufficient to simply incorporate it as a paragraph in the main section? — BQZip01 — talk 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

If TexAgs' notability on Wikipedia is ever put into question, please read the AfD discussion of a similar website. Also, the subject has several references in the media (reputable newspapers that is). BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has already failed an AfD once. It is decently sourced, but only the forum. It is an article about a site with 95% of the article being about the forums. SpigotMap 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So what's the issue with an article being only about forums? BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a forum website. What do you want? — BQZip01 — talk 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Critisms section is sourced entire with forum posts. Editors claiming stake to this article claim this is just fine per WP:SELFPUB. SpigotMap 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the criticism section belongs. As one of the forum's posters, I can confirm that there is criticism about the website, but there is no third-party publication out there that verifies this. Besides, exactly how many users have criticized the website? If the criticism were really noteworthy, wouldn't a third-party take the time to report on it? Also, two of the statements in the section aren't even sourced at all, so those shouldn't be there in the first place. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
There are valid criticisms which have been voiced. Example: [1]. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be there if they can't be sourced, but they certainly should be given the opportunity to be sourced. They certainly don't fall under anything covered by WP:BLP as you stated in your edit summary. However, a rephrase here & there with those sections that ARE sourced should be kept at this time. Second of all, WP:DR involves more steps than going directly to an RfC. I suggest doing those first before involving other editors next time. That said, we're here, so let's see what other people have to say about it. — BQZip01 — talk 02:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)