Talk:Kristiane Backer

Too many non-neutral sources connected to Kristiane Backer

Wikipedia requires reliable and published third-party sources. Sources directly connected to KB, such as her website or a blog or website written by her can't be used. Nor can youtube. Please assume good faith and refrain from making accusations of vandalism. I'm responsibly implementing Wikipedia guidelines; nothing more. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m willing to believe that you’re doing this in good faith, and that you have simply been overzealous. You have taken out the fact that KB worked many years for MTV. This is independently sourced. Why did you do this? Carelessness? That’s simply not an excuse. reinthal (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear reinthal, I hope you are well. That is an untrue statement. Sources directly written by, or connected to Kristiane Backer cannot be used in this way. They are not third-party sources. They are just KB saying things about herself. Wikipedia requires a higher evidential standard than that. You even added back http://kristianebacker.com/ I'm going to ask for other editors to weigh in on this page. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you deny that you were careless in taking out third-party sourced information such as that KB worked at MTV? This is exactly what you did. Such carelessness is harmful and undoes the many hours of work others put in. Honestly, this one of the reasons why people don’t bother editing Wikipedia. Now, in the cases where I referred to KB’s website, why not pitch in and go and look for third party sources to help out rather than do the easy thing and just delete? I’ve been on Wikipedia for 16 years and it’s honestly becoming a stagnant project due to over-eager deletionists who won’t pitch in to grow this great project. reinthal (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Name-calling isn't helpful. Go in peace. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It’s not name-calling to say that you were careless to delete the sourced MTV reference, just accurate. It’s not name-calling to call you a deletionist as, from this sample size of one, it seems an accurate classification. reinthal (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I won't get personal. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticising someone’s actions on Wikipedia is not “getting personal”. If you take things out even though they are independently sourced then you’ve been careless. That’s just a fact. reinthal (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC

It is perfectly acceptable to use self-published sources for biographical details, provided you do so with caution: see this section from the "Verifiability" Page:

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook.

Paulturtle (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm responding to a request from GorgeCustersSabre to put another pair of eyes on this article a few days ago (I've been busy IRL). I hope nobody minds. What specific sources are those in question? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The sources that have been put into question were from Kristiane Backer’s own website, specifically from two of her CVs. I believe that these CVs are credible as they are open to public scrutiny. A public figure like KB would easily be found out if she was not being truthful. Thank you. reinthal (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It could well be said that those CVs are borderline. It is quite common to have a first person CV on a site that one works for, but that is still subject to oversight. How independent is it that it can be used to source something that has nothing to do with that employer? But there is no need to go into that any further as https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/article107191125/20-Jahre-und-noch-immer-Spass.html is obviously independent. Agathoclea (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Since that is behind a paywall not everyone might have access. That article can be used to source a statement that KB was the first moderator of Radio Hamburg to go onto MTV. Agathoclea (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.mopo.de/vip-lounge--radio-hamburg--wird-20--19778026 can be used for the fact that her work at Radio Hamburg was "voluntary" (some site use the translation trainee) Agathoclea (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)