Beauty Pageants Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Kyrgyzstan
Hello!
Angelopedia is not a good source, it's only when we can go to another references since Angelopedia (or fotos, or press release, or video or something) but in this case, is not:
- The Begimay's FB page has not nothing about Miss Universe, and is a private profile.
- There is not a Miss Universe Kyrgyzstan page (in facebook or any more).
- The pics of Begimay has not a sash of "Miss Universe Kyrgyzstan".
- There is not a video, or pic of Miss Universe Kyrgyzstan coronation.
- There is not a proof about Begimay participation at Miss Universe.
In this ocasion, we should to have better sources!--Alex Duilius (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Alex Duilius: Hello, Alex. Thank you for engaging in discussion. Angelopedia is a reliable source, even if it doesn't have pictures of contestants wearing sashes. As for proof that the organization intends to send a delegate to Miss Universe -- that's exactly what the reliable source is reporting. Unless you have a source that contradicts it, we can accept the report from Angelopedia.
By the way, the same thing is now being reported by the Indian Times. If you wish to remove this entry from the list, you really need to produce a source that contradicts the one already in the article.
Thanks again for the discussion. I'll be happy to discuss further if you wish. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hello: I'm still not convinced of the references about Kyrgyzstan. Every year we face the same: information supposedly confirmed and finally ends up being a hoax. In the case of the delegate from Kyrgyzstan, I can't find specific information, only pictures of her modeling, but she lacks the support of a company or, I repeat, pictures of her crowned. As editors we must be careful with this. I repeat, every year we are victims of hoaxes and we must learn to be patient. If the information from Kyrgyzstan proves true, a reliable source will eventually come to light. You claim that "The Times of India" supports the information, but the big newspapers also make mistakes; in addition, this same source says that she "emerged as winner of the grand finale of Miss Universe Kyrgyzstan", Wich final? There was no one! Likewise, there are pages like GlobalBeauties that every year exaggerates information and gives facts as things that are not confirmed. Please, those can not be our main references, we are breaking the basic principle of Wikipedia that is to give information until it is absolutely true. I ask that you please respect the edition and do not add it again until there is an irrefutable source. For now, all references are weak and without support. --Alex Duilius (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Alex Duilius: Hello again, Alex. I've restored the listing for Kyrgyzstan, but I'll also take some time to explain my reasoning.
I'm unsure as to why you mentioned the Global Beauties site, because the site being used as a source as of your most recent removal was Pageanthology 101. But that's not a big deal, because I don't think the Pageanthology site is reliable and I've removed it. As for the possibility that reliable sources like Angelopedia or the India Times might make mistakes -- of course they might. But that's true of every reliable source used throughout Wikipedia. It takes more than the mere possibility of error to remove reliably-sourced content.
You'll see that I've restored the earlier Angelopedia source (which doesn't source the personal details, which I've removed). But you'll also see that I've added a second source -- the Miss Universe Organization itself. Taken together, I don't see any plausible basis for not acknowledging the delegate from Kyrgyzstan.
I'll be happy to discuss further if you wish. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Alex Duilius: Hello again, Alex. I've restored the listing for Kyrgyzstan, but I'll also take some time to explain my reasoning.
- I'm sorry. The sources still are not convincing! The page from Facebook that you put, is not official, be careful with that!. Wikipedia need a forceful source!--Alex Duilius (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Alex Duilius: You are quite right about the Facebook source. The official Facebook account for the pageant is "MissUniverse" and I'm surprised that Facebook would allow someone else to establish an account titled "Miss Universe Organization". But regardless of my surprise, the source can not be used.
Since our last postings, the Kyrgyzstan entry was restored by a different editor and again removed by you. I've just restored it again, this time with a note alerting the reader to the possibility that there was no actual pageant and that the delegate might simply have been appointed.
If you continue to disagree with having this entry, I encourage you to find a reliable source that supports your position. Or, you can pursue dispute resolution at WP:DRN. Either of these approaches will be far better than edit warring against all who disagree with your position. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Alex Duilius: You are quite right about the Facebook source. The official Facebook account for the pageant is "MissUniverse" and I'm surprised that Facebook would allow someone else to establish an account titled "Miss Universe Organization". But regardless of my surprise, the source can not be used.
- I'm sorry. The sources still are not convincing! The page from Facebook that you put, is not official, be careful with that!. Wikipedia need a forceful source!--Alex Duilius (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Best regards. It is not my intention to promote a war of editions, but the situation is very clear: the references don't support the participation of this girl in Miss Universe. We are talking about a fan page that mentions that the girl was designated ..., by whom? when? where and how? The situation is more diffuse when some sources say that she was crowned and others that she was designated. So, I'm not the one who has to look for sources that contradict this, on the contrary, you have to look for sources that support this information. I repeat, i'm not causing a war of editions, but you do not understand that they are endorsing an information that by itself does not hold. Sorry!--Alex Duilius (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- By my count, there are five editors here who believe the identification of the delegate to have been reliably reported. Your reversions have all been based on your own belief that (to use your words) "big newspapers make mistakes". But if you have evidence that shows the reliable sources have erred in their identification of the delegate, you haven't presented it here.
I've restored the entry for Kyrgyzstan. If you remove it without presenting reliable evidence, I will file a complaint at an appropriate administrative noticeboard. Rather than take that route, I encourage you to explore Wikipedia's mechanisms for dispute resolution (WP:DRN). NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. By your count, there are five editors whom repeat the same info, without more support that their own word. You can bring one thousand of references, but, if the one thousand of references are weak, then, the one thousand of references doesn't work by support info in Wikipedia. I'm sorry! If you need to make a complaint, please, do it (I'm not trying to make a challenge, I'm not a native English speaker, maybe it's not entirely clear); i'm pretty sure i'm making the correct process for editions without reliable sources. Best regards!--Alex Duilius (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- By my count, there are five editors here who believe the identification of the delegate to have been reliably reported. Your reversions have all been based on your own belief that (to use your words) "big newspapers make mistakes". But if you have evidence that shows the reliable sources have erred in their identification of the delegate, you haven't presented it here.
- Best regards. It is not my intention to promote a war of editions, but the situation is very clear: the references don't support the participation of this girl in Miss Universe. We are talking about a fan page that mentions that the girl was designated ..., by whom? when? where and how? The situation is more diffuse when some sources say that she was crowned and others that she was designated. So, I'm not the one who has to look for sources that contradict this, on the contrary, you have to look for sources that support this information. I repeat, i'm not causing a war of editions, but you do not understand that they are endorsing an information that by itself does not hold. Sorry!--Alex Duilius (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, Alex. It seems that my filing at the administrators' noticeboard (WP:ANEW) is going to be closed soon, the only action taken being the advice left on your Talk page by an administrator (and that was the only thing that I asked the administrators to do). In a few moments,, I'll be restoring the entry for Kyrgyzstan. If you continue to disagree with this, I encourage you once again to stop edit-warring and avail yourself of Wikipedia's formal procedures for dispute resolution. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Angelopedia a reliable source?
user:NewYorkActuary I am curious, as to why you understand Angelopedia to be a RS. It appears to be WP:USERGENERATED. I don't see anything here about them fact checking things. Their Terms of Use say "All information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or other materials ("Content"), whether publicly or privately transmitted / posted, is the sole responsibility of the person from where such content is originated (the Originator).... The Company accepts no responsibility for the said Content / Images. However, you understand that all Content / Images posted by you becomes the property of the Company and you agree to grant/assign to the Company and its affiliates, a non-exclusive, royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable and sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content / Images (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed throughout the world." (which is fairly horrible - we take no responsibility, but we own it). I searched at RSN and this source has not been discussed there. So again, why do you believe this is RS? Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Thanks for asking. As you can see, I've refactored your question as a separate section, because its subject matter goes beyond that of Kyrgyzstan.
There is no doubt that some portions of Angelopedia are user-generated. Although I haven't done it myself, I understand that people who subscribe as "Members" have access to a separate section of the site, where they can post personal profiles and participate in community discussions. All of that, of course, is user-generated material. But it is equally true that Wikipedians who cite Angelopedia as a source are never citing to anything in the Members sections. I also think it would be an unwarranted stretch to say that the existence of a Members section implies that even the by-lined articles in Angelopedia's "article space" are also user-generated.
What is much more likely is that Angelopedia's articles, although not user-generated, are nonetheless based on user-submitted information. For example, some of the pageants have "Info" pages that give a brief history of the pageant and identify its current operators. I doubt very much that Angelopedia is employing teams of researchers to develop this information. Instead, I find it easy to believe that the "Info" pages are submitted by the pageant itself. As such, they can be accorded the same level of reliability as we would give to the "About Us" page on any organization's web site (i.e., acceptable as sources of basic information about the organization itself). Similarly, I expect that Angelopedia's by-lined articles are based on information from press releases. Here, too, we can accord them the same level of reliability that we would give to any organization's press releases, including those that we find on third-party sites such as PRNewsWire. They certainly can't be used to demonstrate notability, but they can be used as reliable sources of basic information.
Assuming I'm correct about the source of the factual information on the site, this reliability depends not so much on Angelopedia's checking of facts, but on its verification that the submitters of the information are themselves reliable sources for it. And this can be tested. Jytdog, I propose the following experiment.
- Head on over to the "Contact Us" page at Angelopedia and identify yourself as the social-media associate for Miss Earth Reunion Island. Inform them that this year's pageant, tentatively scheduled for July, has been cancelled. In place of the pageant, your organization has appointed Zoe Parlange as its delegate to Miss Earth. (Parlange is an actual contestant this year, so your report might have a "ring of truth" to it). And if you succeed in getting that false report published, be sure to archive it on the Wayback Machine. After that, come on back here with what will be clear proof of the site's unreliability.
Alternatively, you can sign up as a Member and see how far that membership takes you. If it allows you to post that false report as an article in Angelopedia's non-Member space, then do the same thing -- archive it at the Wayback Machine and come back here with that positive proof.
- Head on over to the "Contact Us" page at Angelopedia and identify yourself as the social-media associate for Miss Earth Reunion Island. Inform them that this year's pageant, tentatively scheduled for July, has been cancelled. In place of the pageant, your organization has appointed Zoe Parlange as its delegate to Miss Earth. (Parlange is an actual contestant this year, so your report might have a "ring of truth" to it). And if you succeed in getting that false report published, be sure to archive it on the Wayback Machine. After that, come on back here with what will be clear proof of the site's unreliability.
- Frankly, I don't think this false information will get anywhere near the publicly-viewable portion of Angelopedia. Instead, I expect that you'll be challenged to prove that you really are associated with the Reunion pageant. But if I'm wrong about that then, as the old poet said, "gladly will I learn". NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018
The Contestant for United States, Sara Rose Summers should have Hometown changed from 'Omaha' to 'Papillion
Link to Papillion should then be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papillion,_Nebraska 184.185.7.6 (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia does not cite itself, sorry. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have made this change with a reference ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 16:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
2 49.146.43.241 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Miss USA Sarah Rose Summers hometown
Papillion is a suburb of Omaha, since we have the sources to verify Papillion I would suggest we should be more specific than just listing Omaha as per the Miss USA website. ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 03:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose: I don't think it's our business to determine where someone's hometown is. In interviews, Summers has asserted that she is "from Omaha", and the information on her Miss USA bio comes from the info that she submitted to them, so it's pretty clear that she identifies as her hometown being Omaha rather than Papillion, even though that's where she was raised. This is very common for people from suburbs of larger American cities. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmmm you might have a point there, her FB (not a RS of course but just for the sake of the discussion) says she is "from" Papillion but "lives in" Omaha (not for the next year though!). I could have sworn I heard her say Papillion recently but I might be mistaken - I always figured saying "Omaha" was more general so that people would know where she was talking about. But I'm happy to defer on this one. ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 03:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Kyrgyzstan 2
HELLO:
I'm still not convinced of the participation of Kyrgyzstan in Miss Universe 2018, I make a list with my reasons, with the hope more people take part of the discussion, and make a real consensus:
- The only person who says that Begimay Karybekova will take part of Miss Universe is herserlf, at their own Instagram Profile.
- Apparently, no company or organization supports her appointment as Miss Universe Kyrgyz Republic 2018; there is no information, facebook profile or pages of any company that has designated this girl.
- The sources used to support the information contradict a very important point: some sources say that she was designed, and another say that she won a contest.
- Do not exist photos or videos, neither of her contest, or her appointment.
- The main sources are fan pages, and a newspaper that does not give more information than the replica of we read in fan pages.
- We can not blindly trust sources: if India Times says that cows fly ... then cows fly? We must use the criteria and experience that editing in Wikipedia has given us.
- Before reasonable doubts, the procedure of Wikipedia must be not to put the information until more reliable sources confirm it. I do not do it myself, because I've been scolded for doing it.
I wait for more opinions. --Alex Duilius (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)