Jump to content

Talk:Jennifer Murphy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Neenja" controversy

[edit]

The controversy surrounding the racist viral video of Murphy has cause some controversy of its own on this article itself, with a certain user removing all mentions, including sourced ones. I have compiled a list of web sources I have found relating to the incident to ascertain what is what. Many of these are very low tiered, however I have included them anyway. Feel free to add to the list. UaMaol (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious material about a living person MUST pass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. To be honest with you not one of these appears to be a reliable source. Blogs, OpEds and the like automatically fail IIRC. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list of sources which can be added, but merely a list of sites you could find on the first two pages of Google, henve "I have compiled a list of web sources I have found relating to the incident to ascertain what is what. Many of these are very low tiered, however I have included them anyway." Such sources CAN be used as "lesser" ones, ONLY if there are also "reliable" sources also used. An example is the Daily Mail, which has many justifications, including if the writer is notable (sometimes they have expert guest writer John Craven is a perfect example). A few DM-employed journalists are considered very reliable in the eyes of the Wiki, and such exception was made when it was officially blacklisted. Another exception was as "lesser" sources. I understand your point, but censoring content because you can't be bothered to improve the article is not only counter productive, but just plain silly! UaMaol (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some others:

While I agree many are lesser sources, the NBC and one or two others seem pretty solid to me. Drowz0r (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Murphy. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She was never young?

[edit]

She came fully formed? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:5389:EB4A:CBD4:D50E (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be Neenja the movie

[edit]

I do not want to be banned but the I want to be neenja movie keeps getting removed. I have provided sources, I would like to talk about this instead of “edit waring”. While it did not appear in theatres, online distribution with marketing and an IMDb page with tie in merch and producer credits, I believe makes it eligible for the filmography section. Additionally, I believe it is a noteable and worthy addition to her page. I do not like her, and I haven’t seen the movie but the strangeness of it makes me believe it should be included, otherwise it may become lost media one day. 2607:FEA8:2E1D:AB00:F0BB:DF7C:56FE:7705 (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content and self-published sources, such as IMDb or YouTube, are not reliable sources. Wikipedia includes content that is noteworthy based on reliable sources, not the personal opinions of editors. – notwally (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is US weekly, Yahoo news, or the movie blog deemed to be reliable sources? I can find a news article on her movie from each of those. This circumvents my opinion, and IMDb. 2607:FEA8:2E1D:AB00:F0BB:DF7C:56FE:7705 (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A blog would most likely not be reliable since they are self-published sources. If you link the US Weekly or Yahoo News article (put the URL in between brackets like these [URL]), I could give you my opinion on those. Yahoo News runs syndicated content that does not go through their editorial process, and US Weekly is not generally reliable, and so whether they would be reliable to use here depends on the particular article. See WP:RSP for more information on those sources. – notwally (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1]
[2]
[3]
Regardless of the reliability of these sources the movie is available online. If the logic of the rule is to not promote hearsay, claiming the movie exists and is distributed digitally can be verified with a simple google search. The movie is for sale at this very moment! This very concept is brought up in the fourth paragraph of the WP:RSP:
"Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves."
This is not a high concept technical idea, she self published a movie about her racist video to try and make a quick buck!
Furthermore from WP:RSP "Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources" the links to her own website I used previously as a reference should be more then enough to promote the concept that this movie exists. 2607:FEA8:2E1D:AB00:2870:8214:1F0B:6618 (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mundane claims are information such where a person went to high school. This does not include promoting a self-published film where no reliable sources have ever discussed it. All 3 of those Yahoo links you provided look like advertisements written from press releases. They include the same content and the same quotes taken directly from the press release. None of them appear reliable. – notwally (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can say without hesitation that continued claims of racism will not end well for you. A word to the wise.   Aloha27  talk  23:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I will endeavor to keep the article talk professional. Her instagram [here] (verified) has many references to her movie. May I ask, is the disagreement over this addition that it is "not a real" movie, or is the concern that someone made a parody movie and attributing it to her is wrong? 2607:FEA8:2E1D:AB00:1CE8:32FD:D473:B5FC (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instagram is NOT a secondary, reliable source. WP:RS is a fairly concise tool as to what can (or can not) be used for Wikipedia articles. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the information. I see under the source guidelines, Wikipedia prefers using reliably published secondary sources, but also says primary and tertiary sources can be used as well (sparingly and dependent on the situation). Jennifer Murphy talking about this movie and advertising it is a primary source, and the news articles on them are (admittedly unreliable) secondary sources.
I strongly believe that in conjunction this proves that this movie is real, it was released, and should be enough for the required burden of proof. Furthermore the movie is available on AppleTV. Furthermore this article [here] i believe is a reliable secondary source.
Again I am asking, what is the argument against this addition? Are you advocating that the movie does not exist? That the movie is a parody made by someone else to defraud Jennifer Murphy? Or are you arguing that for what you claim to be unreliable reporting makes it unelligable for inclusion? 2607:FEA8:2E1D:AB00:1CE8:32FD:D473:B5FC (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rules regarding Reliable Sources are pretty clear IMO. AFAICS, none of the sources provided meet the standard required. I'm afraid I agree with @Notwally: on this one.   Aloha27  talk  00:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ I will endeavor to find a reputable source... 2607:FEA8:2E1D:AB00:353F:CD1B:9F2B:1F0B (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jennifer_Murphy&oldid=1248417967"