Talk:Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tiff.net/festivals/festival15/tiffdocs/winter-on-fire

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Allegation sources

The allegation of impropriety appears to come from two websites: One, when Googled, brings up this Wikipedia article and not much else. The other is run by Charles C. Johnson, who is, in the words of his own Wikipedia article header, "frequently described as an internet troll[3][4][5] and accused of unethical and false journalism." Those seem to fail WP:RS big time - especially considering that it's a serious allegation against a living person. I'll remove it as per WP:BLPSOURCES, but if you want to readd, please address here first. Calbaer (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You discount the first-hand Ukrainian journalism source because it doesn't bring up enough google hits. And you discount the factual English language summary of that article because you think the author lacks credibility. You realize the publicity for this movie and its director are rather small, yes? If a fundamental controversy regarding the origins of the film isn't important enough to include on its page, then both pages should both be deleted for lack of notoriety. MusselParty (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

An Oscar-nominated film is, by definition, notable. If you have some evidence that the Ukrainian source is a reliable news source, please provide it; see WP:NEWSORG for help on that. I tried to find third-party information online about it and could not find any indicating that it was a well-established news outlet. The other source is clearly not reliable. I see neither the allegation nor either of the news sources it came from in mentioned on the (more detailed) Ukrainian-langauge version of the page (nor are they in the Russian-language one). To me, that indicates that the absence of evidence of reliability is due to more than simply oversight. The bar is high for living persons, so some evidence more than the mere existence of an online allegation is needed. If you have evidence - of facts and/or reliability - please present it. Calbaer (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I accept your challenge. How about we meet in the middle and you describe in concrete terms evidence that would be acceptable to you. That way I don't waste my time researching stuff that will be summarily rejected. For example, what criteria would have to be met by a journalist or news organization for you to deem it credible? MusselParty (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote above, "see WP:NEWSORG for help on that." Sentence three and - below that - bulletpoint three are especially relevant here. Unfortunately, there are no hard-and-fast rules, but, as explained above, WP:BLP has a high bar and arbitrary websites don't meet it. If you can find citations of the rumor - or, better yet, evidence - in a major publication, then it would merit inclusion. (Of course, by "major publication," I mean a reliable one. News of the World or Russia Today wouldn't count, since their lack of regard for truth has been well-documented in more reliable media. We could get into a philosophical discussion about how we can know that anything is truth, but, as of now, we have to deal with the knowledge, policies, and guidelines as they currently exist.) Calbaer (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)