Talk:Shazza McKenzie

Citing reliable video sources

User:Addicted4517 I and another editor have stated we believe WP:Youtube, Wikipedia:Video links and WP:ELNO make clear citing a video streaming site is fine, provided that the uploader is a reliable secondary source, which in this case it absolutely is. As a rule of thumb on Wikipedia, when there are only 3 editors involved in a conversation and two of them have reverted the one; the one is expected to make some kind of acknowledgement they're going against current consensus, stop reverting, and should take things to the talkpage, and if needs be ask outside editors to become involved in the discussion (such as through an Request for Comment). Instead you've kept deleting the citation even when two separate editors restored it. I think the good faith thing to do would be for you to self-revert unless another editor agrees that your stance on video links is correct.

But besides that; look at this:

• Rihanna, a rated good BLP article, cites reliable video sources on Youtube
• Conan O'Brien, a rated good BLP article, cites reliable video sources on Youtube
• Chyna, a rated good BLP article, cites reliable video sources on Youtube
• Timothée Chalamet, a rated good BLP article, cites reliable video sources on Youtube
• Peter Dinklage, a rated good BLP article, cites reliable video sources on Youtube
• Seth MacFarlane, a rated good BLP article, cites reliable video sources on Youtube

I could keep listing more but I think my point is made. Good rated articles receive some of the highest levels of scrutiny on Wikipedia; this demonstrates that citing reliable video sources is completely fine.

I also want to point out that I couldcite the exact same interview, but link directly to this [1] url. This link has the exact same audio, word for word. However, besides the fact I believe linking to reliable, secondary video sources is completely fine under Wikipedia guidelines , this url locks the exact same interview behind a subscription. This means any user looking to verify the information in the interview hits a roadblock. As a point of principle, I believe I should be using the url link that makes it as easy as possible for someone to verify the information in the citation.

So with all that said, can you please concede this point? I think the multiple examples of Good BLP articles with cited youtube sources has put the nail in the coffin on this particular aspect. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN is better for this discussion. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've now asked the question on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Citing videos from reliable, secondary sources on BLP articles and the answer I've received to me confirms that Youtube videos on BLP articles may be cited as long as they're from a reliable, secondary sources, as we maintained throughout the discussion. User:Addicted4517 should now self-revert. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No I will not self revert because you misled the RSN by failing to invoke WP:NPA while falsely accusing me of socking through the hopping IP. I never invoked WP:ELNO. You avoid YouTube videos because they can disappear and not be archived because they can't be (see two dead links on the Chyna article, affecting it's GA status IMHO). The preference is for text on WP. The video is also not from Wrestling Observer itself. It's from the Heartland NewsFeed and not verified so it could well be a copyright violation. I would revert the Dinklage citation except that I don't edit in the main space outside of wrestling. The other four - two are notable for their videos and two have their own channels so the exceptions apply. That is not the case here. I expect an apology and withdrawal of the socking accusation. Bottom line - the article does not need the cite anyway as the claim already has another source. It's the same with the Dinklage cite. As an aside there is a comment on the video claiming that the interviewer is terrible and has no idea about wrestling. Just pointing that out. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I assumed those edits were by you while not logged in or on your phone when I made the WP:RSN thread and I did not think you were sockpuppeting, just being careless. However, two incidents of random IP editors taking your side in both Shazza McKenzie and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shazza McKenzie (3rd nomination) does now have me seriously weirded out. You're stating now these are complete separate editors from you who just happened along? CeltBrowne (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am and it is not a good idea to assume - except to WO:AGF:assume good faith which you are obliged to do. I await the apology and withdrawal. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If those IP editors have nothing to do with you, then I do apologise (sincerely). I hope you can understand though why my alarm bells would ring though, particularly as the IP editors in Shazza McKenzie have now been blocked by an Admin for sockpupperty.

But I'll drop that topic now.

In fact, at this point, I'm close to dropping the entire thing now. However, I see that you've replied on WP:RSN and once again they're telling you starkly that you're not correct about citing video links. On this idea that it's possible copyvio; it's not. Wrestling Observer Live is a radio show broadcast live and on VOD across several platforms, "Heartland Radio" being one of them. "Heartland Radio" is namechecked at the beginning of every edition of Wrestling Observer Live . It's made very clear that Heartland Radio is legitimate distributor of the content.

At this point, I'm not willing to going around in circles over whether or not the Mike Sempervive source is cited or not. But going forward as you edit Wikipedia, I think you should take onboard what RSN is telling you about Video Links. They straight out told you

Your view that YouTube "should never be used" is very out-of-line with the current consensus and relevant guidelines.

which is open and shut. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not open and shut because of one thing. Wikipedia is a text encyclopedia. You have not proven beyond doubt that this is not a potential copyvio - the You tube account is not verified. That is a fact. I think you should stop talking down to me. It is not a good look. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)