User talk:Shane Cyrus

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:05, Thursday, November 7, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Miley Cyrus references

Hey, I know you're trying to do good and get the article to feature, however, when adding references, you have to be careful that you are adding reliable sources. Huffington Post, OK Magazine, are not reliable sources. If the information cannot be reliably sourced then it cannot be added. Also, when adding references, you need to use the cite template to fill in the references not just have the url. If you have the toolbar where it says "advanced" "special characters" "help" "cite", if you click "cite", it'll drop down a menu and on it it says "template", click that and do "cite web". There it will ask for Author, Title, Url, Publisher, Date, Accessdate and others. Thanks :) If you have any questions, just ask LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Just what I was looking for! :) . I find you as one of the best editors on the whole Wikipedia. Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Coming to this talk page via the Justin Bieber article. Lady Lotus, The Huffington Post and OK! commonly pass as WP:Reliable sources. They are not reliable for everything or most things, of course, but they are often acceptable sources for WP:BLPs and other types of articles; OK! is not too different than People, and People recently passed as generally being okay to use for WP:BLPs, as made clear here and here. During that whole People debate, I also addressed use of OK! (I think I did, or I'm confusing that with Hello!). Flyer22 (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you on the Huffington Post but recently was told to remove them to get her to GA status. And since she is GA status and I want to keep her there, then they probably should not be used in the article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Lady Lotus, I see that it was XXSNUGGUMSXX who advised you to get rid of The Huffington Post sources. Use of The Huffington Post is a case-by-case matter for WP:BLPs, but its use for WP:BLPS or for Wikipedia in general is nowhere close to being banned. XXSNUGGUMSXX also advised against use of People and The New York Daily News. And you expressed your view that People is unreliable. XXSNUGGUMSXX is a good editor with regard to WP:BLPs, especially celebrity WP:BLPs, and so are you, but you are both incorrect with regard to the acceptability and/or general reliability of People...per what I stated above. The WP:Consensus that resulted from the extensive WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion about People was meant to keep exactly that type of discrimination from happening when it comes to that source. WP:Consensus from that discussion is that People has good editorial oversight and is generally a WP:Reliable source for WP:BLPs, but that it either should not be used for contentious information or should have an additional source to support its use for contentious information, and that it should never be used to source highly contentious information. Notice, however, that when I noted on NeilN's talk page (shown in the first discussion link above) that I JethroBT's closure of that discussion can be misinterpreted since what is contentious can be debatable (but that what is highly contentious usually is not debatable), NeilN essentially stated that people should understand what is meant by the closure. In the second discussion link, you can see I JethroBT stating (at 07:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)):

Hi Flyer, thanks for your feedback. If it's helpful, I agree with NeilN's suggestions here that would have been useful to clarify in my close-- I'm sorry that this causing more trouble. In my defense, I tried to stick to the language used by many editors in that RfC, and they variously stated that "contentious" material should not be sourced to People (or at least, not alone). To speak to your example, I would say that unless there are discrepancies between it and other reliable sources, something like a celebrity's birthday or their family members could be reasonably sourced to People. I agree that sometimes editors will call something contentious, but there should be a demonstrable reason why that is so (which it may well be in specific cases). Calling it a "gossip magazine" or saying that birth dates are simply iffy in People alone just aren't going to cut it, for instance. John's arguments were not persuasive during the RfC and they shouldn't be elsewhere if that is the basis for disagreement. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As for blogs and tabloids: A news blog is not the same thing as a general blog, which is made explicitly clear by WP:NEWSBLOG. And The New York Daily News is not a tabloid; it's simply in tabloid (newspaper format). In other words, tabloid newspaper format is not the same thing as tabloid journalism, which is made clear in the lead of the Tabloid (newspaper format) article. This distinction (tabloid newspaper format vs. tabloid journalism) was a big point during the People debate(s), when other sources were being addressed, such as The New York Daily News and Hello!. These sources are not generally considered WP:Unreliable, including with regard to WP:BLPs. Neither is Us Weekly, also mentioned in the Miley Cyrus WP:GA review you are referring to. That stated, XXSNUGGUMSXX is correct about some sourcing issues and aspects in that review. For example, there are often stronger or more reliable sources than these, and it is often best to go with those stronger or more reliable sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX is correct about the Daily Mail often being regarded as an unreliable source on Wikipedia; that source was also an aspect of the People debate(s). About.com? Was not an aspect of the People debate(s), but using it as a source on Wikipedia can also be a case-by-case matter; I'd stay away from souring WP:BLPs to About.com. So, yes, I'm all for using stronger or more reliable sources, but I don't want to see valid sources, such as People or Us Weekly, being unnecessarily banned from WP:BLPs or a WP:BLP article failing WP:GA or WP:FA for using those sources...unless the uses are clearly inappropriate. "Celebrity source" does not mean "unreliable." And that is what I hope you, XXSNUGGUMSXX, Status (another solid editor of WP:BLP celebrity articles who I'm familiar with) and Jaguar keep in mind. In fact, once this discussion is over, I'm going to note it at the aforementioned Miley Cyrus WP:GA page (in the Close - promoted section) so that those reading that page may not get the wrong idea regarding some of the aforementioned sourcing aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, thank you very much for your compliments on my editing skills, but you're mistaken on Us Weekly- they are a gossip magazine that often poorly supports their claims. A recurring example I see is how they have quotes from anonymous "sources". It would have more credibility if they at least named who those "sources" were. Even when they do provide such names, their reports are often biased (i.e. when reporting that a celebrity couple has ended their relationship, will write in favor of one celeb over the other). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, XXSNUGGUMSXX. I'll agree to disagree about Us Weekly. That source seems to be on the same, or close to the same, reliability standing as People; and like I noted above, the WP:Consensus from the recent WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion about People is that it is generally a WP:Reliable source for WP:BLPs. Both sources sometimes engage in the anonymous sources route (like you noted in the aforementioned Miley Cyrus WP:GA review), and so do a lot of WP:Reliable sources (reliable non-celebrity news outlets as well). Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The big issue I have is how those two repeatedly use anonymous "sources". The vast majority of reliable sources I know don't use them as frequently. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I also find OK! magazine not a reliable when their own website calls itself "OK! Magazine | Exclusive Celebrity Gossip". Right there, they take themselves out of the running to be a reliable source. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, Lady Lotus. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) To quote Alex Bakharev from long ago - "A blog is a blog. They 'do not go through any peer review or fact checking' process, it reflects only its 'author's opinions that can be intentionally simplified to entertain the readers. The only advantage of the blogs hosted with a respectful media organization like New York Times is that we should not worry that the blog is hosted by an imposter. Thus, blogs can be used to source a personal attributed opinion of a notable blogger (that in case of such bloggers like Paul Krugman might be a very notable thing) but that should be never used to provide sources for an objective truth. In a very new non-controversial article not dealing with living people except the blogger, a reference to a respectful blog might live for awhile (a bad source still better than no sources!) but it should be changed to a reliable source as soon as possible. -- Moxy (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This is why Perez Hilton is never accepted as a source. However, I do often see "blogs" from Los Angeles Times and Washington Post, which are indeed quite different. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My points Lady Lotus, XXSNUGGUMSXX and Moxy? We should not be discriminating against sources based on our personal tastes. This is exactly what one editor was doing because he dislikes People and some other celebrity sources, as shown in the extensive People debate noted above. And what did the community say to that type of editing? That acting that way is a no-no. If the sources pass as WP:Reliable sources, we should not be indiscriminately removing them from Wikipedia articles. It is for the Wikipedia community to decide what sources we are not supposed to use. Unless Us Weekly has been deemed unreliable by the Wikipedia community, I see no valid reason to go around yanking it from WP:BLPs or demanding that it be yanked from a WP:BLP during a WP:GA or WP:FA review. The same goes for OK! magazine; read carefully what I, JethroBT stated above about simply calling a source "a gossip magazine" and determining that it can't be used for a WP:BLP. That type of reasoning is the same type of reasoning that was used to banish People. And what did the Wikipedia community say to that type of rationale? That type of reasoning is wrong. All of that, Lady Loutus, means that I disagree with you very recently removing Us Weekly from the Janice Dickinson article. It's an extremely poor Wikipedia article, but now it's made poorer by that removal. And, Moxy, a blog is not a blog; this is made explicitly clear by the WP:NEWSBLOG policy (not simply a guideline) that I cited above. The "blog is a blog" reasoning is the type of reasoning that has editors failing to realize that tabloid newspaper format is not the same thing as tabloid journalism and therefore that removing what they view as "a tabloid" is not actually a tabloid. XXSNUGGUMSXX, there are various reasons that Perez Hilton sources should not be used in WP:BLPs, the least of which concerns those sources being a blog.

A thing to do before I decide whether or not I'm taking US Weekly or similar sources to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, because apparently the overall point of the People debate(s) has not spread or sunk in far enough, is to alert Collect to this discussion. As you all may know, Collect is one of the most well known WP:BLP enforcers. He is also one of the editors who supports the use of People as a source for WP:BLPs. Viriditas may also want to weigh in on this matter, since he's become somewhat involved in such debates...mainly due to his use of the Daily Mail, as shown in the second discussion link I noted above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry- I assure you that I wasn't acting on personal tastes. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Your rationale for removing Us Weekly is similar to what was used to indiscriminately remove People, and various editors saw that rationale as a matter of personal taste. Also similar is your suggestion to remove The New York Daily News because it's "a tabloid," when, actually, it's not. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Then why is "tabloid" included in its infobox? I'm not sure if it was a tabloid when Joseph Medill Patterson first founded it given his previous work in Chicago Tribune, but the fact that it even includes "tabloid" in into infobox is going to set off red flags for some people. Radar Online is also very unreliable. I think the point Lady Lotus was trying to make is that gossip is discouraged. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Because, like I noted above, that newspaper is in tabloid format. Tabloid (newspaper format), which is different than tabloid journalism, is linked in its infobox for the format field. Read the lead of the Tabloid (newspaper format) article. The Independent and The Times are also in tabloid format. Yes, compact (newspaper) is a tabloid format. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with People and I have read through that discussion where consensus said to use it as a RS. I too am not acting on personal taste. I don't claim anything to be gossip mag that isn't but the fact that New York Daily News, Radar Online and US Weekly are all self proclaimed gossip sites, then they shouldn't be used. New York Daily's slogan - "Find breaking US news, local New York news coverage, sports, entertainment news, celebrity gossip, autos, videos and photos", Us Weekly's again is - "Us Weekly: Celebrity News, Celebrity Gossip and Pictures" and Radar Online is considered an "American entertainment and gossip website" on Wikipedia. None of them should be considered reliable. People doesn't claim anything about celebrity gossip, it talks about "celebrity news, celebrity photos" so it's different. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated, I'm waiting for Collect to weigh in, because all I see with removing (or suggested removal of) sources such as US Weekly and The New York Daily News is indiscriminately removing WP:Reliable sources in the same destructive way that was going on during the People debate(s). Again, People was not the only source being discussed. The New York Daily News was also being discussed, for example, and editors generally did not find it unreliable for WP:BLPS. Also, The New York Daily News is a newspaper, not a magazine. It's a newspaper that just so happens to report on celebrity gossip in addition to the various other things it reports on. And again, the "gossip magazine" rationale was used to try and keep People out of WP:BLPs, and the Wikipedia community stated that a source simply being a celebrity source or a gossip magazine is not a valid reason for removing such a source from a WP:BLP. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case, "tabloid format" is a rather misleading term. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)