MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2018/08

gofundme.com


This specific GoFundMe page ended successfully over two years ago and hasn't had any activity in over a year. The sole point of whitelisting it would be so that I can use it as a source for Deborah Parker's support and endorsement of Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign, which I will then add at.

Relatedly, does whitelisting the URL also whitelist an Internet Archive archive copy of the page, which is usually in the form of ? I have an archived copy of the page available, too, which I intend to insert if this page is whitelisted. Thank you for your time. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , this is the typical material that needs secondary sourcing. If the world did not care, why should we.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * While I would generally agree,, primary sources are acceptable in such circumstances, have been accepted with consensus at the List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 article, and was discussed—for example—here (permanent link) on the talk page. That as why Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, and other such self-published sources about the subjects themselves are accepted and used in the article.Since relying only on secondary sources for the contents of the list would introduce a selection bias that contradicts the purpose of the article subject, namely to document all public endorsements and expressions of support from notable people for that campaign, primary sourcing was deemed acceptable for the specific circumstances of that article. Perhaps secondary sources from mainstream media outlets did not care (Deborah Parker, though qualifyingly notable even then, only got a Wikipedia article this month), but they are not our readers and those readers may definitely care.Regardless, the criterion for inclusion at the article is the notability of the subject providing the endorsement and not the secondary coverage of the endorsement itself, and that is satisfied in this situation. Such endorsements from notable subjects are inherently noteworthy, at least within an article whose subject is as a simple list of endorsements, so they are included. Therefore, I request that you please reconsider your decision. If you object to it being a primary source, then that applies to a significant portion of that entire article and others like it. Thank you for your time. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tweets and facebook posts are something different. That is about what a subject says about themselves.  Here it is an endorsement of oneby another.  Surely other sources must have found it worth mentioning.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've re-read that section, and I don't fully agree. Following that logic, anything posted by a notable person on their twitter ('oops, I farted while in Walmart!'), is suitable for inclusion because it has a primary source.  That is a wrong hyperbole.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above GoFundMe page is the notable subject (Deborah Parker) stating something about herself, namely her support for Bernie Sanders and his message during his 2016 presidential campaign. That is a claim about herself because it is an expression of endorsement; it just so happens that this autobiographic claim is an expression of support for another subject. That is, according to the consensus at the article, qualifyingly an endorsement worthy of inclusion. In such a circumstance, a primary source is arguably  because it directly verifies the subject's endorsement, something that a secondary source could hypothetically misreport. That is why both a primary and secondary source are often cited in such circumstances; unfortunately, there appears to be no secondary source for this endorsement.An  is inherently noteworthy if it is from a notable subject, whether from Twitter or Facebook or GoFundMe or their personal (but official) blog,  due to the subject of the list and the criteria for inclusion established there. Whether a notable subject farted in a Walmart is  noteworthy, even if published as the lead sentence in a hundred thousand secondary sources and in their biography entry in Encyclopædia Britannica. This is because it is  and undue within the context of that list, just as it would be to include the fact that Bernie Sanders once played a Jewish rabbi in My X-Girlfriend's Wedding Reception alongside a mention of him at the 2016 Democratic National Convention article.The inherent noteworthiness of Deborah Parker's support for Bernie Sanders, as indicated in that GoFundMe page, is  the subject of the article in which the claim would be included is a stand-alone list simply enumerating public expressions of exclusive political support from notable subjects. That is why, within the context of the list, the source I am citing would fit unremarkably right in alongside the citations of tweets and Facebook posts from other notable subjects.No, as far as I can tell, there is no secondary source reporting on this public support, but there was almost no secondary source coverage of Deborah Parker during Sanders' presidential campaign, either, despite her being a campaign surrogate who spoke at rallies in support of him. There is also no secondary source reporting on dozens of the other public endorsements included in the list, as well, at least as far as I can tell. While I would rather there be some in addition to those primary sources, and I would readily include one if I could find one, that requirement is not what appears to be the prevailing consensus at the article nor is the source I want to use prohibited for this context anyway.If the problem here is that it is a primary source, then that is a problem with the consensus of the article in which I intend to include the source. You can attempt to change the consensus there or boldly remove the primary-sourced entries and see if it sticks, but if your objection  is because I'm following consensus  in a way that benefits the article, despite it qualifying as a reliable self-published source about and by the person, then I honestly do not understand the basis for rejecting my whitelisting request. The only difference between this source and the others already prolific in the article is that my publication attempt was snagged by a spam blacklist. Maybe after it is permitted and I cite the source in the article, the source is later removed alongside others with the rationale you provided here, but that is a process outside the scope of this request. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources". I very strongly doubt this is the only source, there must be independent sources saying the same.  I agree, primary sourcing can be fine if no other sources can be found to exist.  And yes, I think that the other should also be replaced with better sources if they exist (and undoubtedly do).  I'll leave it to another admin to discuss further.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input and consideration in this matter. Treating sourcing critically, as you have, is a crucial part of our role as editors. Although you appear to be leaving this for another administrator to handle, I believe you deserve a thorough response. Hopefully, this suffices.Regarding secondary sources: Unfortunately, none of which I am aware. This is the result of searching for around an hour through dozens of search results pages with a dozen or so broad and specific search strings using multiple search engines. After all that, the strongest source I could find for her public support for Sanders was that GoFundMe page. As far as I'm aware, Parker is not on Twitter and has no public account. Her Facebook is also not public, so anything I could find in there couldn't be accessed without an account (and whatever other access restrictions she enabled).There is video evidence of her speaking in support of Sanders at a rally, but that is not published by a sufficiently reliable source and assuming exclusive political support from that is probably original research. Likewise, she gave an interview that was supportive of Sanders, which be a stronger source given it's from a reliable independent publisher, but her statements are less unambiguously endorsing and, again, interpreting them as so may be an original analysis. Lastly, in an obscure video published by the official Bernie Sanders campaign channel, Parker awarded Sanders an honorary Coast Salish name and referred to him as "soon-to-be [...] President Sanders", but—again—that is less unambiguous an endorsement than creating a GoFundMe page specifically to afford the funds to physically represent Sanders "at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Philadelphia as a National delegate" because she wanted "help [...] to carry BERNIE'S message to Philadelphia." In the "Updates" section, the image she uploaded probably says more than words can: standing beside Sanders with a "Natives for Bernie" sticker at the Convention. (Now, if only I can get that image released under a free license, that would be great to add to her biography. I need to find a way to contact her first, though.)Throughout most of the 2016 presidential election campaign, the extent of Parker's coverage largely consistent of brief mentions (sometimes just the name, rarely more than a clause) when she was appointed to the Democratic National Convention's platform drafting committee to represent Bernie Sanders. (I don't count that as endorsement because that could reasonably occur without exclusive support for Sanders during the election and says nothing explicit about Parker's position.) She spoke at Sanders' rallies, campaigned for him, promoted him on social media, and was even a significant player in crafting the Democratic Party's new platform as a representative of the Sanders side of progressive politics, particularly regarding Native Americans (permanent link). Nonetheless, it seems nobody was interested in her. If that was not the case, then I would have definitely found that reporting during my nearly two months of research on her and included it in her article when I published it three days ago. In fact, the reason why I titled that section "2016 US presidential election" was because I expected to find more coverage. Given I didn't, it might be worth renaming.If you or anyone else can prove me wrong, I hope I am because that coverage will improve the encyclopedia. I doubt that coverage exists, though, and on the particular matter of Parker's enthusiastic support for Sanders, not even obscure blogs and LiveJournal entries cared to talk about it. I followed the 2016 presidential primary very closely, though, and watched all the tens of hours of the Democratic platform drafting committee hearings and votes, so I think I can confidently say that Parker was woefully underreported. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC); minor addition at 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

pornhub.com


For use on the Johnny Rapid page, which currently has the uncited claim that he was one of the most requested performers of 2017.

Jrdburrow (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)