Talk:Ted Key

Hazel book

That Hazel book that the authors or their publicists have tried to put in here with promotional language isn't even available yet -- not even for pre-order on Amazon, neither by full title, partial title, ISBN number, or even just "Shirley Booth." If/when this book comes out, Key's contribution might be notable, but as of now, this is both pre-publication publicity and WP:CRYSTAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that new user TedKey2 is upset over the removal of uncited content that can only be verified via a commercial sales page taking preorders for a particular book. He says in his edit summary, "Tenebrae ... claims its advertising since review of book not availabel online yet. You do a disservice to Mr. Key's memory. You defeat the whole purpose of wikipedia." (I'm hoping I can help TedKey2 understand the policies involved here, and more importantly, why.

I think it's an honest misunderstanding of Wikipedia's goals, first of all, and the reasoning behind not using original research. Without getting into a whole tutorial — there are links in this posting that can do that — I'd like to start by expressing that Wikipedia doesn't exist to do service or tribute to an individual's memory. It's not a fan site. It strives to be, as much as possible, as objective source of straight, factual material with a [{WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. That is the whole purpose of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia does this through reliable print or online sources that can be independently verified. This is because there is no way to confirm any one editor's own research. I may have done an interview with Tennessee Williams, say, but I can't add material from that interview to the Tennessee Williams article since no one can verify what the interview says. Even if I put that interview online, there'd be no way to prove I'd really spoken to Tennessee Williams. You can see that since anybody can put anything up on the Internet, that it's important to have a high degree of certainty that material is valid and is what it says it is. A newspaper interview with Tennessee Williams, for instance, we can all agree is a confirmable, valid source of information. If theater buff John Doe, with no established journalistic background, puts what he claims is his exclusive Tennessee Williams interview on his Web site, with TW saying he stole the idea for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, well, would you have high certainty of its valildity?

The other policy in play is that Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising or promotion. There is a huuuuge temptation among some people or businesses to try to use Wikipedia in that way. Is advertising informative? Does it bring useful information to the public? Many times yes. But it's primary purpose is to sell a product, and using Wikipedia as free advertising is not fair or right or in accordance with Wikipedia's stated policies. So, how does Wikipedia try to prevent this? One of the single most concrete ways is to disallow links to commercial sales sites. So if the only proof that a product exists is one Web site selling it, we can't link there. And without a citation, we can't state something as fact. There's a larger issue involved that speaks to the heart of Wikipedia's own validity and credibility -- we cannot allow claims without citations. I'm sure you see the importance in an encyclopedia not allowing claims without valid citation.

If the book is reviewed in a newspaper, for example, we can link to that objective, third-party source. I hope you see the reasoning now behind the Wikipedia policies — pretty basic ones, really — that I and other espouse and defend. I hope you'll read the Five Pillars of WIkipedia and contribute knowledge to this great endeavor. Honest to Betsy. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Key. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121115651/http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/hazel/bioMaina.htm to http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/hazel/bioMaina.htm

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) 11:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)