User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Reliable sources for horror films

consider adding Twitch

You may consider adding Twitch @ http://twitchfilm.net/site/
while not specifically horror, along with Western and International film they cover a vast amount of Asian films including K-horror, J-horror, and T-horror films; and are probably the only reliable site for T-horror news. The site combines news, blogs, forums, and other aspects together to make for a reliable starting point for editors. You already have the other three I tend to go to for information: E Splatter, Fangoria. and Fearnet; all right in a row. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got Twitch... down by the bottom. Alphabetical. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

minor copy edit

Hi, I made a minor copy edit to a sentence that had redundant clauses. Otherwise the guideline looks really good. If you're planning to suggest it gets made into an official guideline let me know - despite my bad spelling Im used to writing formal documents, and I could help ammend it so it follows the standard format for accepted WP: docs.

As a minor suggestion, in the opening paragraph you could maybe change the line "Many may have even started as..." to "Some of these sources , such as X & Y , started as ..." if you know two examples, as that would sound a little more solid. Sorry I cant help more, I think I've only ever watched about half a dozen horror flicks & dont really know much about the scence. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with a copyedit or two, as I invited the help :). I agree that the lede can use some tweaks and will look into it this evening. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to reinvent the horse, I think this can be integrated into WP:NF instead of beng made into its own guideline. Ikip (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... but you know the intransigence it might recieve if I do not at least show by short summary and references the editorial procees of each that show they meet WP:RS. I do not mind. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the guideline

Hi MQS, as you point out, WP:NF states that an enumeration of attributes

generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist.

The "required sources" referred to are (as you also point out) "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in which the topic has received "significant coverage".

So what the guideline is saying is that certain attributes act as a proxy for the GNG criterion because those attributes lead to a presumption that the GNG is met (just that nobody has identified the references as of yet).

So your statement

These "attributes" are not mandantory, these attributes are only represenative examples of notability that may be found when searching for sources

is not consistent with the logic of the guideline. A similar statement that is consistent with WP:NF is:

These "attributes" are not mandatory. Rather, they are representative of attributes that give rise to a presumption of the existence of sources satisfying the GNG.

Some of the comments in the table below the lead-in are commonsense, but others do not appear to be supported by unambiguous consensus. To be persuasive, a personal essay about the interpretation of guidelines should make clear distinctions between (a) the author's opinion, (b) the author's view of what the current state of consensus, and (c) what is (close to) unambiguous in the guideline itself.

The list itself is impressive. What seems to be generally lacking (with a couple of exceptions) is any reason other than pedigree (which is in principle an unpersuasive one) to view the sources are, in fact, reliable. No description of their editorial or fact-checking policies.

Keep up the good work.

Regards, Bongo matic 17:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liked your slight change in wording. While I think we were both saying the same thing, your version sounded more wiki-esque... so it is now here to replace my own phrasing. And I do agree that the comments need cleaning... and the list is going to be trimmed, and then likley expanded, as some of the sites do not meet even minimal criteria for RS, though they might for V. But since this is to be an aid for genre-specific RS, I will continue to source those that remain as strongly as possible. It represents many hours and very tired fingers.

By the way... just so I know where to find it in other sources... where can I find links to show the fact-checking processes of Newsweek and People? Let's pretend you had never heard of them before and they were not already accepted as RS. How would I prove to you that they were? By the background and knowledge of their authors? By how often they are themselves quoted by others? If Newsweek were to write "we check all our facts and here are our editors"... since it is SPS of them to say so, how could anyone presume to accept the statement at face value? Perhaps that question should be considered as a rhetorical.

As for pedigree...? Well, we're talking about horror films here, not national policy. With this genre, knowledge and pedigree are paramount in showing expertise and authority on the subject under consideration. As guideline instructs RS are sources "...generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context."... so unless I misunderstand guideline, and since guideline offers that reliability depends on contest... I would not expect Newsweek to be authoritative on independent horror-genre films, just as I would not expect Bloody-disgusting, Fangoria, Rue-Morgue, or their brethren to be authoritative on national policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I think this will best serve as an aid to WP:NF General principles, and serving the needs of those darn attributes (chuckle)... even if it stays as a userspace essay and not one out in wikispace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on RS, but I think it's somewhat POINTy to go beyond a thought experiment considering what we'd do if it weren't know to all that Newsweek is reliable (People on the other hand ...).

RS says (in not necessarily the only relevant comment on this) that sources are reliable when they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A couple of ingredients for this are wide dissemination and being read by and scrutinized by detractors, watchdogs, and people with diametrically opposed viewpoints. Many highly targeted information sources can be expected to lack these readerships, so the balancing forces that provide external pressure for fact-checking and backup can be lacking too.

My opinion is (and there may be a consensus on this point the same or different from it—I truly have no idea) that sources that permit user-generated content are a priori of questionable reliability unless they have editorial policies that give some comfort that facts are, well, facts. While I think that Newsweek is unlikely to be comprehensive on independent horror-genre films, I think the community would find any claim made by Newsweek about such a film to be presumptively reliable.

As to pedigree, I don't think it's irrelevant by any means—just not (usually, anyway) wholly determinative. Bongo matic 06:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed yes... This week was pretty much my first pass through a tremendouse mountain of material. I got to the top only to realize I was standing on a hill, with the real mountain ahead of me. However, I will be looking to wean out those that I am unable to determine have any editorial oversight, and seek those that have genre-specific community respect for their authority. Lots to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This"

Hi! You have a lot of "This is". Please consider that Diana Hacker explains that “The pronouns this, that, and which should not refer vaguely to earlier word groups or ideas. These pronouns should refer to specific antecedents. When a pronoun’s reference is too vague, either replace the pronoun with a noun or supply an antecedent to which the pronoun clearly refers.” See Diana Hacker, A Pocket Manual of Style, Fourth Edition (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004), 39. William Strunk adds, “The pronoun this, referring to the complete sense of a preceding sentence or clause, cannot always carry the load and so may produce a vague statement.” See William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 61. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Lots of cleanup to be done. Some weaning. Some expansion. Many more tweaks and fixes... but I think I'm on the right track. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested additions

Here are a few possible additions to the list from the horror/b-movie GAs I've done:

Monsters and Critics.com
BlogCritics.com - one of the few RS blogs, edited by Eric Olsen with a 20 year history.
Horror.com
UGO.com - not only horror, but frequently has horror reviews
DVDReview - been around since 1997, thousands of reviews with notable reviewers on board, and frequently has horror films

And, of course, one can always get offline, particularly for older films, and check out:

Mayo, Mike (February 1, 1998). VideoHound's Horror Show: 999 Hair-Raising, Hellish and Humorous Movies. Detroit: Visible Ink Press. ISBN 1-57859-047-7. OCLC 39052368.

Also one minor correction, Rotten Tomatoes itself isn't the source for the reviews, rather the original reviews it links to should be sourced :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Nice... VERY nice. And seeing that I may finaly have time during the holidays, this will be finally getting more attention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horror News has a regular staff and a review process, it seems it could be used as reliable - at least when using articles published by the regular staff. Diego (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Customized Google search

I've created a customized Google search with the sites listed in the page, like the one that is used at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. You may want to include it in the page. The spam filter doesn't allow me to include it here, but I've requested it to be whitelisted. You can copy/paste the url link and try it for yourself. Diego (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources for horror films:

http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=006337113803439356310:qmncn5902lc