Talk:Werner Erhard (60 Minutes)
Note
editCreated, with ten (10) sourced quotes cited to the investigative journalism piece "Werner Erhard" by 60 Minutes itself, and twenty-four (24) sourced quotes cited about and commenting on the reporting by CBS News. -- Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Trimmed intro
editThe intro is trimmed ( see here, because you can read the initial intro ten times, and still don't understand what it is about. -- Mdd (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- You changed the year to the wrong year, 1979. And what does mean, "is 1979 shows" ??? ROFLMAO. -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, please correct: Because the topic of this lemma is a show the first term should be italic. -- Mdd (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I've changed the lemma to italics. Hopefully this is now satisfactory to you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, please correct: Because the topic of this lemma is a show the first term should be italic. -- Mdd (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
If this one episode was that important, I might suggest writing a Wikipedia article about it explaining what this is about. -- Mdd (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you! The episode is indeed quite notable. It received coverage in hundreds of secondary sources. However, these days on English Wikipedia I'm more interested in writing articles generally about freedom of speech, such as the Featured Article, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the point of Mdd's remark was that explaining what it is about is something better suited for Wikipedia than for Wikiquote. The whole article seems to be to be rather short on quotability and, particularly in the "about" section, but really the whole article, seems more like a coatrack for information that does not fit in Wikipedia's biographical coverage. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- The subject is notable as an independent page. I just don't have the time write now to write an article on it on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your last comment seems rather disingenuous: You are not permitted to write about this subject at Wikipedia, but you evidently have plenty of time to use Wikiquote for prolific writing about the proscribed subjects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, actually I've had a focus on freedom of speech generally on Wikipedia for quite some time now. As evidenced by writing from scratch and then bringing Freedom for the Thought That We Hate to Featured Article quality. -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your last comment seems rather disingenuous: You are not permitted to write about this subject at Wikipedia, but you evidently have plenty of time to use Wikiquote for prolific writing about the proscribed subjects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- The subject is notable as an independent page. I just don't have the time write now to write an article on it on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the point of Mdd's remark was that explaining what it is about is something better suited for Wikipedia than for Wikiquote. The whole article seems to be to be rather short on quotability and, particularly in the "about" section, but really the whole article, seems more like a coatrack for information that does not fit in Wikipedia's biographical coverage. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I quite agree with Ningauble's assessment of this page. These quotations are not at all notable and do not rise to the standard of quotability. They are about one segment of a 60 Minutes show that CBS itself removed from their archives because they were factually inaccurate. Indeed what was reported about this episode is that "The “60 Minutes” segment was filled with so many factual discrepancies that the transcript was made unavailable with this disclaimer: “This segment has been deleted at the request of CBS News for legal or copyright reasons.”" It is a violation of copyrights to publish material that the originators of said material removed from their own archives for "legal or copyright reasons" --MLKLewis (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The statement “This segment has been deleted at the request of CBS News for legal or copyright reasons.”" does NOT equal an assumption that it was for "factual discrepancies", no idea how that author came to that conclusion other than a personal assumption. The episode is indeed extremely notable on its own independent merit, based on coverage in numerous secondary sources over a prolonged period of time. Indeed — it is still discussed among secondary sources to this day. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The last sentence of MLKLewis (talk · contributions) is factually incorrect, it is not a violation of copyrights to quote from a TV show for fair use purposes, and MLKLewis (talk · contributions) would do wise to educate himself about fair use, particularly if MLKLewis (talk · contributions) has never heard of fair use before. -- Cirt (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)