Talk:Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cancellation controversy[edit]

The "Cancellation controversy" section describes upset fans clamoring to get this show back on the air. Unfortunately the only sources provided are to a petition site, Facebook, and a response posted to fan forum. There is no independent, reliable, secondary sources who reported on this issue. Compare this to the fan outcry when Jericho was cancelled which did receive significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The problem is that every show that gets cancelled has a fan base that protests the cancellation and starts up Facebook pages, petitions, and complains on forums (official and/or otherwise), but none of that is notable or worth mentioning in the article for the show unless it receives significant coverage from reliable sources. This is no different than using fan-sites and fan-forum commentary as sources for the content in an article -- that's not how Wikipedia does things. Unless/until independent, reliable, secondary sources are found that discuss the fan protests in significant detail then this stuff just does not belong in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the fans getting so raving paranoid that the show's star has to make an announcement pleading for them to stop is noteworthy. Obviously, "this happens all the time" is not a reason to exclude something, anyway. Many things in every article happen frequently, but are still of interest to readers of that article, which (as long as it's factual) is one of the most important criteria for what to include. This is also non-controversial. Nobody's going to be upset that it got mentioned, or doubt it, et cetera. A lot of the guidelines (and too many people forget that most Wikipedia standards are only that) exist primarily to deal with actual controversies, like what embarrassing things to include in a famous politician's article...NOT as something to apply to all articles, all the time. And then some wikilawyers come along who don't understand the spirit of the thing, and start demanding that ALL articles live up to those "rules". —Kaz (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what you think is noteworthy or not, what matters is if reliable, secondary sources think it's noteworthy. Wikipedia is not your personal blog or wiki where you can report whatever you want. Wikipedia is also not a collection of facts. I am not questioning whether these things happened, i.e., I accept this as fact, but by putting this stuff in the article it makes these events appear significant. But you have provided no evidence that they are significant; it is your opinion that they are significant and as I said Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your opinion on any matter. I'm sure it was significant to the people involved but this in no way means it was significant to society at large. You are also wrong about guidelines. All editors are expected to follow all the relevant guidelines in editing. This is not just about preventing libelous content but is about creating the best possible encyclopedia we can. The best possible encyclopedia is not editors putting in whatever they want wherever they want just because they think it's significant or factual. That is just not how Wikipedia operates. Blogs and other wikis operate in that manner, not Wikipedia. That is the "spirit" of Wikipedia. And in no way is this wikilawyering, it is taken from the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, the fundamental rules of Wikipedia "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person." Notice that this fundamental principle does not make an exception for non-"living people" but makes it clear that it applies to all edits. All you have to do is find some reliable, secondary, objective sources that establish that these protests were significant and then the problem is solved. Otherwise it just does not belong in this encyclopedia. SQGibbon (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It does not matter what you think is noteworthy or not, what matters is if reliable, secondary sources think it's noteworthy."

Wrong. Again, you are wikilawyering a guideline into a rule, needlessly. You can use primary sources for non-controversial information, as long as you're not interpreting them. Saying "this is happening" and pointing to it happening, for example. "There are petitions" and pointing to petitions, or "the subject of this article posted a plea for people to stop" and pointing to the plea are perfect examples of legitimate primary source use.

You're not dealing with a Wikipedia newbie, here, I've been doing this for eight or nine years. I have a clear understanding of how the guidelines you're confusing for absolute rules work. This is not controversial, is at least arguably of use or interest to the reader, and has primary sources that are valid references to the facts stated. There is NO need for a secondary source, in a case like this. — Kaz (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's policy (not guideline, even though your understanding of what guidelines are on Wikipedia is flawed) from WP:PRIMARY " Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." This material is based purely on primary sources and should be avoided.

And from WP:BURDEN (another policy) :"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Notice the part of "any material challenged". I have challenged this material and now it is up to you to provide reliable sources. A Facebook page, a post on a fan-forum, and a petition site are not reliable sources.

If you provide a reliable, secondary source that reported about the fan protest then pointing to the petition site and Facebook page could be justified as you would have already established the significance of the event. But you haven't therefore this is all just original research.

Finally, I'm not wikilawyering. I'm bring up the most basic points of Wikipedia usage. I am not delving deep into obscure guidelines or obscure interpretations of guidelines and policies. This is all very basic stuff: provide reliable sources. You have not provided reliable sources, the information has been challenged and therefore should be removed from the article. It's simple, basic Wikipedia editing. SQGibbon (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]