Talk:Dan Smith Will Teach You Guitar/Archive 1

Parody/In Popular Culture
Hi. Can we discuss whether the "parody" section qualifies for the "in popular culture" tag that is being repeatedly added? The tag states that: ''Many articles about subjects with broad cultural impact have sections titled "In popular culture," "Cultural references," or "In fiction," which exclusively contain references to the subject in popular culture. When these sections become lengthy, some Wikipedians spin them off into separate articles to keep main articles short. When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines. This text does not apply to that section, as the section is there to point out not gratuitous references in popular culture, but to show the widespread impact of this ad campaign on different media outlets, all of which are'' notable. Tduk (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Its a Trivia section plain and simple please see Manual of Style (trivia sections). You Cite An essay, I cite guidline The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was citing the link provided in the tag that you were using. Can you explain in detail what you mean rather than simply stating "this is a trivia section" I don't think it is, so I am not sure why your opinion is the one that is fact here. Tduk (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did this go unnoticed? I'm still waiting for clarification here. Tduk (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted references
Hi. A lot of references were recently deleted with "Reliable Sources" reasoning. In just about all of these cases, the material that the citation provided was left in, but the citation itself was removed. The policy I can find related to this (which is the best I can do without links provided at the time of reference removal) is at Identifying reliable sources, which states that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.. Further, the Biographies of living persons addition clarifies that Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed.. I don't think any of the material related to these references "would be challenged", so I am curious where in wikipedia policy it says that any non-strictly-reliable sources must be removed on principal. I believe these sources, while not the best, do provide some value. Thanks. Tduk (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So far you added them in thus the burden is on you to prove they are reliable.

So far all are sources that fail WP:VThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This a Forum not even remotely a RS or even a source for that matter WP:SPS
 * A Blog by a non-notable person not a RS
 * A Blog by a non-notable person WP:SPS
 * This is Jpg picture which is not even a source.
 * "Who the Hell is Ubiquitous Guitar Teacher Dan Smith? Again a Blog by a nonnotable person WP:SPS this i even added a link to Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9
 * Again a blog by no notable person. WP:SPS
 * Edit conflict, I was posting the same list and arguments as ResidentAntropologist, I just want to add that the theory that using a "non-strictly-reliable" source over no source at all is bogus, a non-reliable source is not reliable and should not used at all.  man with one red shoe 02:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I said too much, so you didn't address my question. Please just show me where in wikipedia policy the position that you are both taking is presented. Thanks. Tduk (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so we are clear what position do you think we are taking?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be operating under the belief that any reference that is not a 100% reliable source should be removed, in all cases. Tduk (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we (or at least I) operate under that belief that references that are not "reliable sources" per WP:RS should be removed. man with one red shoe 13:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, a non-RS should never be put in an article in the first place thus removal is practical and necessary The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure really how what you said is different from what I said - but Ok. You've stated your position; now can you please show me where your position is presented as wikipedia policy? Tduk (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in WP:RS that was referred here over and over: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" -- so, why would you want to base this article on poor, unreliable sources? man with one red shoe 14:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the policy I have been following too. It says should, not must. Wikipedia policy is generally very clear in its use of language. Perfectly reliable sources are ideal, obviously, but are not a 100% strict requirement in all cases. Tduk (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia should use reliable sources, I interpret that that it shouldn't use unreliable ones, especially forums and blogs from non notable people. Again, why do you want to use poor sources in this article, it's not clear to me, do you think you'll influence the vote to keep the article? On the contrary, an article that's referenced mostly by blogs and forums would probably be most likely to be deleted. man with one red shoe 16:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Should" means that it would be better if there were better sources. This is pretty obviously true, right? If wikipedia MUST not use unreliable sources, it would say must. It says should; should implies that it would be best if it were followed, but it is not a necessity. I put the sources in because I got content for the article from them. If people want to know where the content in the article came from, they can click on the source. If they find a better source, then that's even better, and they can replace it - but the whole point of sources is to show where the article content came from. That is the point of putting those sources in there. The material is not contestable, thus there is no reason not to include those sources next to the content I got from them. Tduk (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use content from unreliable sources either. man with one red shoe 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In any case I think this reached a level of sophistry that is too much for me to continue the discussion. The issue is simple in my opinion: 1. you used unreliable sources. 2. wikipedia should use reliable sources. Draw your own conclusion. I end the discussion here. man with one red shoe 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Should implies "not always". If wikipedia MUST use reliable sources, that is what the policy would state. Interpreting "should" as "must" is your own interpretation of it, and I disagree with it. If you can show me somewhere that says wikipedia must use reliable sources, then I will understand the removal of the sources... but considering that the reliable sources page goes on to mention a lot of cases where less reliable sources are acceptable, I have to say that your interpretation seems wrong to me. You are essentially asking me to believe your interpretation as fact regarding wikipedia's policy without showing me relevant documentation, which is not helpful to anyone. Tduk (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of our essay WP:LAWYER as especailly #3 there The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Are you aware that in my eyes, it applies to what you are saying as much as you probably think it applies to what I am asking? Why is my interpretation of the policy - from when I read it some time ago - less valid than yours? I am doing exactly what I think the "underlying intent" of the policies is. I will assume good faith and assume that you are doing the same. Where are we supposed to go from here, if we are simply interpreting policy differently? Tduk (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)