Talk:Binghamton Review

Discussion on verifiability rules
Let's look at the article on verifiability

If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source.

This is my understanding of that entry of the rules. It is acceptable if the Binghamton Review published an article to include the information from at article in my Wikipedia entry, citing the Binghamton Review article as my source. Which of course is what I have been criticised for doing.

It appears that I have followed the rules. I would appreciate any of the administrators who disagree with what I have quoted to explain to me the problem they see.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelh613 (talk • contribs).


 * Michael, a student journal is not considered a reliable source. In addition, to use the journal as the main reference for an article on the journal equates to using a primary source, which is not acceptable per WP:RS: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material...Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections."


 * Furthermore, the edits you wish to make cast aspersions on the reputation and name of another person based on your interpretation of an article they wrote as a college student. To comply with WP:BLP, you must cite reliable sources to make the edits you wish to make. By "reliable source" we're talking about a major newspaper such as the London Times or the New York Times. Despite repeated requests for a source, you have not provided one. All you have done is claim the original article as a source. This is not acceptable, particularly not in the way you wish to use it.


 * Instead of worrying about one article that was published in a student journal 15 years ago, why not focus on making this into a better article? it is in desperate need of an edit. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That basically sums it up. I would emphasise that wikipedia is particularly sensitive to any negative material about a living person. There are two reasons for this. The first is because of wikipedia's own position regarding potential defamation, and also not wishing to be regarded as a means of mud-slinging. So any negative material should be cast-iron in its adherence to policy. It is essential that any such material therefore should already have appeared in a reliable secondary source. The second reason is sensitivity to that person and potential hurt to the individual's feelings and/or reputation.

You cite VERIFY as justifying your edit, but, not even the source you quote has made the allegation which you wish to include. The allegation is your interpretation of the article and therefore violates NOR. Nor can I see any viable reason why this one article and this one person has been singled out from all the other articles published by the magazine, a lot of which it would seem were controversial: this violates NPOV.

I suggest you concentrate on making non-controversial edits to articles and ease your way into editing the encyclopedia, building up a knowledge of how it works and what is considered acceptable. As you are a new editor, it is understandable that you have inadvertently broken some of the conventions which are specific to wikipedia, and this won't be held against you in future, if you take the lessons on board. If you're still not sure about this and wish to discuss anything off the record, you are welcome to email me. (Go to my user page and click "email this user" in the bottom box on the left.) Tread a little more cautiously and happy editing!

Tyrenius 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)