Talk:Joan Gerber/Archives/2013

Joan Gerber's fate?!?

In 2011, an obscure website called Toonzone posted information that Joan Gerber died August 22, 2011. Later that year, it was incorporated to her Wikipedia article, but it was reverted by Wikipedia user User:Bbb23. News of her death was not announced in any news channel, site or newspaper, but this could be explain by the fact that Joan Gerber was not well-known outside the animation world, where she was a voice acting great. In 2012, however both her IMDB, Voicechasers and Behind the Voice Actors website reported her death as August 22, 2011. Voicechasers and Behind The Voice Actors are both fan generated websites and IMDB has a history of errors. In 2012, Her colleagues and friends Rob Paulsen, Pat Fraley and Nancy Cartwright (who considers Joan Gerber and Daws Butler her voice acting mentors) confirmed her death on Rob Paulsen's Talkin Toons Podcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

none of them count as reliably published sources. considering that the poorly sourced information that existed in the Wikipedia article has been widely spread, we need to use great caution because calling a living person dead is a serious BLP issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Rob Paulsen, Pat Fraley and Nancy Cartwright would never hurt Joan Gerber in such a way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

oh, if you say so.... err wait, your personal affirmation still does nothing to make it a suitable reliably published source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This is why internet conflict are utterly pointless. What do you have to gain by insulting and/or showing how wrong-headed you can be. Your behaviour is by no way encyclopedic and would not be supported by Gerber's daughter, friends or by Joan El. Gerber herself. By the way, doubt you know what affirmation means. She had great career and does not care if someone is keeping her alive beyond reasonable actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

[claims are all well and good, but are exactly] the same reason that we require reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, even if you do provide a reliably published source (such as *publicly available* government records), apparently, wikipedia now has a completely ridiculous ban on citing primary sources, so it will not be accepted. How can you do this? No primary sources? Are you kidding? Citation of primary sources are the foundation of research writing. That's the first thing they teach you in college! And apparently, wikipedia frowns on secondary sources, too, so those are out. By banning this, you've essentially limited everything to original research or the author's own conclusions, except that wikipedia has a longstanding ban on that, too. So, basically, it's impossible now, to write anything because cited sources are now considered "unacceptable". This attitude of living in constant fear of lawyers and frivolous lawsuits that wikipedia has chosen to adopt is just ridiculous and has essentially defeated the original purpose of the site. Gabeb83 (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources. As long as they are reliable and verifiable. You can read the reason why at the first link but basically primary sources often require original research on the part of the editor in order to interpret the findings of the primary source. SQGibbon (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)