Talk:Harry Partridge

Removing references
User:FormalDude has blanked a bunch of sources claiming they don't count as WP:RS see. Among these sources are a book published by Routledge's CRC Press, myfoxboston.com, a book by Packt Publishing, scifinow.co.uk, ElDiario.es, thewatmag.com, Skwigly Animation Magazine, an imdb link, a BBC link, a digitalspy link, and an interview from a website called "kittysneezes.com". Out of these, only the last one is obviously not an RS, while the others obviously are. They should be reinstated. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the "kittysneezes" link, yes, it's not a WP:RS, it's not ideal, but it's been used in the Andy Partridge article for years and is the only current source I can find for this statement, except Harry tweeting about it once or twice. I find it's better to have a so-so source for this statement than having nothing at all. However this is the one source I would be OK with being removed, if it really is a must. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that the "About Harry Partridge" Youtube link isn't a reliable source either, but it was added automatically when I added the YouTuber template. So obviously Wikipedia accepts things that are not WP:RS for certain things, though they of course don't count toward establishing notability. I don't think removing things just for the sake of removing them is making Wikipedia better for anybody.101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Re the BBC blog reference another user wanted to remove, note that it is (or maybe was) the official blog of the BBC Comedy Department, and is acceptable per WP:NEWSBLOG.101.50.250.88 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

User:FormalDude has ripped out a bunch of content again, including several perfectly fine sources and statements. See. I don't think this is acceptable. If you think a statement isn't covered by the provided source (which is often open for debate, but debate you refuse to engage in), tag it with "citation-needed", don't rip out both the source and the statement. What good does it serve other than to increase the chances of the article getting deleted? Also see WP:TWITTER for the twitter link you removed. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The good it does is bringing the article closer to Wikipedia standards, actually making it less likely to be deleted. And WP:TWITTER supports the removal of the link. –– FormalDude  talk  11:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it's appropriate to rip stuff out instead of tagging the things you find questionable? Is it merely to leave me unable to keep on improving the article, something I've spent considerable effort doing, because I'd get busted for WP:3RR if I reverted you? Because of this, I can't place those statements back, I can't rephrase the statements provided by the removed sources, I can't provide better sources. If you honestly want to work together to improve the article, please revert your edits, tag the things you find problematic or not covered by reliable sources, and allow me a chance to improve it.101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have truly bastardized the article in an absolutely nonsensical manner. You've removed his family information, that his dad is Andy Partridge, yet you've kept the link where the same Andy Partridge talks about his son...!101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Given your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I don't feel obligated to extend you that courtesy. If you want to challenge my edits, explain exactly what you're challenging and provide thorough justification. However, I don't deem anything you've said thus far persuasive or even worthy of response. –– FormalDude  talk  11:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The "courtesy" wouldn't be extended as a personal favor to me but for the betterment of the article. I can confess to feeling embattled and very frustrated by what I find are simply destructive edits when it should be apparent I'm expending a considerable good-faith effort to improve the article, but if even responding to me is beneath you, then I guess that's the end of the discussion.101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

RS for his father being Andy Partridge, sister being Holly
Reliable source for Andy Partridge being his dad: Farmer, Neville (1998). XTC: Song Stories: The Exclusive Authorized Story Behind the Music. London: Helter Skelter Publishing. pp. 143, 239. ISBN 190092403X. (found in the article Garden of Earthly Delights)

Also (quoting Andy Partridge saying (or is it interview text on the sleeve? Unclear) in Fuzzy Warbles Volume 6: "When you become a dad you badly want to write about your kids, it's natural, but it seems to easy to fall into the sickly greetings card world overpopulated by well meaning but flatulent fathers. So I thought I'd write about Harry in a way that was utterly unmistakable with thinly disguised filth." That Andy is Harry's father and that Andy's other child Holly Partridge is, by virtue of how fatherhood works, Harry's sister, is now established in WP:RS, so could this please be reinstated in the article? Here are some ancillary primary sources (tweets from Harry's/Holly's twitter accounts): 101.50.250.88 (talk)  07:23, 21 September 2021, edited 01:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Intro
This line was removed by User:FormalDude, along with one of the references used in support:

"Partridge is largely inspired by Western 1980s animation and has been credited with pushing Flash-based Internet animation toward more traditional animation and away from simple tweening."

I will add this back, with an interview as a source for him being inspired by traditional animation. While the interview did not appear in a WP:RS, it's acceptable as a primary source, as information coming from the horse's mouth, Harry, on his inspirations (not something that is controversial). What about him pushing Flash-based animation toward more traditional animation, do any of the sources quoted explicitly say this? Yes. The book: "I think this was carried across on Newgrounds to a certain extent, but their idea was to push yourself and become better, which is why you have people like Harry Partridge and Egoraptor, who really started pushing what Flash could do, more in the direction of traditional animation in many ways." I don't think the intro could in any way be construed as a mischaracterization of that quote. Is there a mention of tweening? On the surface, no, there isn't. There's a minimal amount of WP:SYNTH going on here, I will admit, but if you know the first thing about Flash animation, like I happen to do, you will know that "tweening" has always been the standard mode of animation when it comes to Flash, so while the book quoted doesn't mention the word in the quoted section, it's implicit when it says they pushed animation in the the direction of traditional animation - that's what they pushed away from. Did the Cartoon Brew editorial, which was removed, have anything to do with this at all or was it an example of "refbombing"? I'll agree it's not the best source for the intro. It's an WP:EDITORIAL, but it does appear in a WP:RS and it is at least vaguely related to the topic. It's a commentary on an animation Harry made making fun of tween-based animation, and says that such tools, which Harry was making fun of, shouldn't be seen as a threat to traditional animation. I agree that source could perhaps be moved to the "career" section instead, with a note on that particular animation, but I don't see what damage it does in the top either. I will reinstate this now, along with several other of my edits which were removed, as it's been a week of the other editor refusing to engage. I won't disagree if the Cartoon Brew link is removed from the intro though, but it's an ancillary reference anyway, and removing it doesn't mean the rest of the text should be removed.101.50.250.88 (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The intro currently states that Harry is most well-known for Saturday Morning Watchmen, but looking at this YouTube channel, it's actually only his 7th most viewed video. #1, #4, #5 are actually all Skyrim parodies. (#2 is "Hal The Misinterpretive Porn Star", which is mentioned in the Collider article). Would anybody object to rephrasing the intro to this: "Harry Partridge (born 17 August 1987) is an independent British animator and voice actor best known for his animated movie and video game parodies, including the 2011 Saturday Morning Watchmen."101.50.250.88 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Interview with Andy, The Simpsons
User:FormalDude removed this paragraph from the "Family and career" section:
 * Partridge was interested in drawing and animation from an early age. He and his father have claimed a character of his design "nearly" appeared as a background character on the animated sitcom The Simpsons in 1999, through a connection of Andy's, but that it fell through. In an interview at the time, Andy described Harry as a "pudgy-looking kid in glasses" and expressed his hope he would work in the field of animation in the future.

This was supported by a WP:RS interview from 1999 with Andy Partridge and a more recent tweet from Harry. The policy User:FormalDude quoted was WP:BLPPRIMARY "Avoid misuse of primary sources", but it's not clear to me from a reading of that policy how any of the content removed actually constituted "misuse." There is no blanket ban on using primary sources, see WP:PRIMARY which states that "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Is it then a misuse to use the interview with Harry's father to say that 1) Harry was interested in drawing and animation from an early age 2) that his father has claimed one of Harry's characters was to appear on the show, 2) that he described Harry as a "pudgy-looking kid in glasses" or 4) that he expressed hope Harry would work in animation in the future? I don't really think that's a reasonable reading of WP:PRIMARY. I could understand removing the claim about The Simpsons, maybe, but the removal of the rest doesn't seem like a good-faith edit but merely like destructiveness for the sake of destructiveness by an editor with a thorn in their side. Also, below the policy FormalDude quoted, we find WP:BLPSELFPUB which lists under which circumstances a self-published source, such as Harry's tweet, might actually be used. Again, no blanket ban. First of all, it shouldn't be "unduly self-serving." Is it? As phrased above, obviously not. It shouldn't involve claims about third parties. Again, as its currently phrased, it doesn't. It refers to a claim made by his and his father, doesn't say it's factual. "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" - No, not with the sources provided. His famous father mentioned it was going to happen in an interview when Harry was 12. Harry mentioned it 20 years later on Twitter that it did, in fact, not actually happen. I believe the burden of proof should of course have required more proof than the dad's interview if the claim was that his character DID appear on The Simpsons. Is it important that the part about The Simpsons in particular remains in the article? Not really - it has nothing to do with Harry's notability and does in no way help establish him as a notable WP:AUTHOR, for example, but it is something that adds a little color and makes the article better and more interesting. In summary, I think that the line saying they've claimed a character of Harry's design was nearly on the Simpsons can be discussed (so let's do that), but removing the other lines from the interview with Andy was completely uncalled for and they should be immediately reinstated. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Your word soup does not change the fact that the section I removed is not at all well sourced. Find a reliable secondary source if you want it back in the article. –– FormalDude  talk  02:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being able to state my points more succinctly but I don't think that invalidates them. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So please respond to them with something other than "TL;DR". 101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the whole thing, that is my response. Find a reliable secondary source if you want it back in the article. –– FormalDude  talk  03:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are acting unreasonably and choosing to ignore the points I've brought up regarding the use of primary and self-published sources. Do we really need to go through the 3rd opinion process for something as trivial as this? Also to clarify, you are saying not only that The Simpsons mention shouldn't be included, but also the other "factlets" from the interview, like mentioning his father expressed a hope Harry would work in the field of animation when he was 12, has no place in the article? Because you're not really presenting any reasonable arguments for this. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To be absolutely clear here, you do not have the permission nor support in policy to blanket ban the use of a reliable primary source in this article, so merely barking these commands at me is not meaningful.101.50.250.88 (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It fails all five criteria laid out under WP:BLPSELFPUB. I'm not barking commands at you, I'm telling you what you need to do if you want to convince me. So far I'm the only one who cares to waist their time arguing with you and your poor interpretation of Wikipedia policy. –– FormalDude  talk  05:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you're referring to the tweet, not the interview which is the base for the non-Simpsons stuff. I'm trying to discuss two things at once here. Do you think the non-Simpsons stuff I referred to above has no place in the article, and if so why? Secondly, well, I certainly disagree with that assessment which you present without any explanation. I don't feel you're approaching this conversation in good faith.101.50.250.88 (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Manifesto" by Tracy Marshall in 1999 from the article aggregation website Chalkhills.org is not a reliable source for a BLP article. It is self-published material that has no editorial oversight and could be completely fabricated. –– FormalDude  talk  05:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference is to a magazine article that HAPPENS to have been reprinted on the website chalkhills.com which gathers all things related to the band XTC. The reference is not to the website itself. Any reference which you don't have access to could, in theory, be completely faked. The fact that this is reprinted on a fan website gives you one mean to confirm it's actually NOT. But I will actually ask John Relph, the proprietor of that website, if he indeed did fake it, as you say.101.50.250.88 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead, you should ask the Wikipedia community if the source is reliable for the text you want to add by posting at WP:RSN. –– FormalDude  talk  05:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've re-added it with the tag "Verify source" for now.101.50.250.88 (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, you didn't like that either. What's the relevant policy on tags like "verification-needed"? What's your basis for immediately removing something instead of giving more editors the chance to actually verify it?101.50.250.88 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The policy is material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article. Other editors will obviously have a chance to verify it since you have brought it up on the talk page. –– FormalDude  talk  06:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Come off it. It's not contentious material or poorly sourced - there's a reference to a perfectly fine source, an article in a printed UK magazine. You've requested however that it be verified so we really know it's not fake - I'm complying by actually trying to do that. You could do what you're doing here with any statement in any article on the basis of you personally not having access to the original printed copy of the source of the statement. Obviously if everyone did what you just did there would be complete chaos. This isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to be edited and you must surely realize this. You've zero ground to claim it's false, poorly sourced, or contentious.101.50.250.88 (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's zero evidence that that source was ever printed in any magazine. Clearly this is a source dispute, and it should be taken to WP:RSN. I will open a discussion shortly since you apparently don't want to. –– FormalDude  talk  06:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely welcome it, go ahead.101.50.250.88 (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * –– FormalDude  talk  07:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The ISBN of the magazine appears to be 9771475015004, please include this in your posting on the noticeboard. (I'd include it in the source if I didn't expect I'd just be reverted...).101.50.250.88 (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add that information in a comment. –– FormalDude  talk  07:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)