User talk:Dbloomer

This addition has been routinely removed without any explanation given. If you feel it is not relevant to the matter of the controversy surrounding the film, I invite you to explain to me why.Dbloomer (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I read the WP:RS article which stipulates that primary sources may be used under the condition that ..."All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." I have made no interpretive or synthetic claims, nor have I made an original analysis of the source provided.Dbloomer (talk)
 * Read the statement again: "must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source"...where are the secondary/tertiary sources? You haven't provided any. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have only referenced the primary youtube source, the content is thus "an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editor".Bennv3771 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It says original interpretations of primary sources must be supported by secondary/tertiary sources, not 'all primary sources must be supported by secondary/tertiary sources'. See the following captions from the pages you linked which declare primary sources as permissible under the condition that they aren't being subject to original interpretations: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources" "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"Dbloomer (talk)
 * It is original interpretation because the number of likes/dislikes is constantly changing. The numbers you provided are no long up to date, are you going to change it every few seconds to keep it factual? Anyone can remove that claim on the basis that the numbers aren't even accurate according to the cited primary source, and they would be right unless you are committed to keeping the numbers updated every second. Also I can see no like/dislike ratio on the youtube link you cited. Did you calculate that yourself? That is WP:OR.Also read note "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You haven't done that. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm certain all the positive reviews are also subject to change. We should remove them because they are original interpretations, then, don't you agree?Dbloomer (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No of course not. The positive reviews are all attributed to a reliable secondary source. Is there a reason for you to think The Hollywood Reporter, Peter Debruge of Variety, the 19 critics on IMDB metacritic are going to retract their positive reviews? I've never seen that happen. And since it is rare, there is no reason for us to worry if they will as we can easily change their reviews in the rare event that is happens. On the other hand, we can say with certainty that the likes/dislikes will keep changing and we cannot easily keep changing the numbers as it is extremely time consuming. The IMDB users vote can be removed though. Go ahead and remove that. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How about a deal: I will commit to keeping the reviews from Michael Rechtshaffen of The Hollywood Reporter, Peter Debruge of Variety and the 19 critics on metacritic up to date if you will commit to keeping the numbers/ratio of the Youtube video update to date as well. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

First, there is only one source (no secondary sources as per your claim) supporting the Rotten Tomatos figures, that source being the website itself, which is completely analogous to my post citing the URL to the Youtube trailer. Furthermore, the current average rating, and the number of raters, for the Rotten Tomato entry on the page is currently off from the source cited at the end of the caption. You commented earlier, 'anyone can remove that claim on the basis that the numbers aren't even accurate according to the primary source.' So I say again, to be consistent, since there are no secondary sources supporting those Rotten Tomatos figures, we should remove the entry outright, according to you. Please, either restore my source or apply your standards consistently and tag the Rotten Tomatos figures as needing a citation.Dbloomer (talk) By the way, I included the date in my entry precisely because I know that figure is subject to change, and I wanted to be explicit about it, rather than implicit; whoever included the Rotten Tomatos entry forewent that courtesy.Dbloomer (talk)
 * Hi. Rotten Tomatoes isn't an appropriate analogy as they aren't a primary source. They aren't the reviewers and we aren't attributing those reviews to them but to the critics whose reviews they are reporting on. They ARE the tertiary source reporting on the secondary sources who have written those reviews about the primary source (the film itself in this case). Of course we can cite the tertiary sources' website. Right now YOU are serving as the secondary source of the primary youtube video, and you are not a reliable source per WP:RS. Just like if a reliable independent website supports your youtube numbers/ratio you can absolutely cite them as a reliable source. And you included a date but you didn't cite a source that actually supports those numbers for that date. I checked the youtube source you cited and it shows different numbers and the current date. Are we just supposed to take your word that on 1 May it was those exact numbers? Either way the youtube link doesn't support your claim right now. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is the original source of the aggregate information on this wiki entry such as 'average rating.' If by your account Youtube is the primary source of the aggregate information (likes/dislikes), what distinguishing factors make Rotten Tomatoes exempt from being the primary source of the aggregate data included in this wiki entry? Both websites engage in the exact same process: they add up information collected from a number of people and present a conclusion numerically. Your case is that my data is subject to change and is thus unsuitable for the page. My response to you, as before, is that other data in the wiki entry is subject to change and must therefore be equally unsuitable.Dbloomer (talk)
 * What distinguishes them is that they are aggregating reliable sources (professional critics) and youtube is not (random people on the internet). If you think the data from professional critics is subject to as much change as youtube likes/dislikes data, then fine, let's make a deal: I will commit to keeping the data from metacritic and rotten tomatoes up to date, and you commit to doing the same for your youtube claim. And everytime we fail to keep it updated, the claims can be removed. Deal?Bennv3771 (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Dear White People (TV series)‎, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please also read WP:RS for what is a reliable source. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Namely, if the like-dislike ratio of the youtube video is encyclopedic and relevant as you claim, then it would have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. Please cite those sources, otherwise it is WP:OR. Also please read WP:RS, primary sources like a link to the actual youtube video do not support claims of relevance/notability. Wikipedia relies instead on secondary reliable sources. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Discuss instead of edit warring
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Dear White People (TV series). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing tags
Hi. Please don't remove tags without addressing the issue. A citation that supports those youtube numbers was requested, and you still haven't provided one, hence a citation is still needed. Also, perhaps you haven't heard that the dailymail isn't a reliable source?"Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". Bennv3771 (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I want a citation supporting the Rotten Tomatoes figures, then. You haven't made a compelling case for why two sets of standards are appropriate. Dbloomer (talk)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)