→June 2024: Reply
|
→June 2024: Reply
|
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
:::::I'd like to continue discussing my proposed changes and get Robert's page sorted properly. Please do look at my [[Talk:Robert (doll)#Suggested Lead Edit v2|suggested lead edit v2]] and kindly let me know if there is anything of issue within. |
:::::I'd like to continue discussing my proposed changes and get Robert's page sorted properly. Please do look at my [[Talk:Robert (doll)#Suggested Lead Edit v2|suggested lead edit v2]] and kindly let me know if there is anything of issue within. |
||
:::::Thanks. [[User:Gabriellemcnell|Gabriellemcnell]] ([[User talk:Gabriellemcnell|talk]]) 17:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
:::::Thanks. [[User:Gabriellemcnell|Gabriellemcnell]] ([[User talk:Gabriellemcnell|talk]]) 17:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::The additions to the lead that you are proposing in "Suggested Lead Edit 2" do not have any counterpart in the body of the article, and are completely unsourced. The guideline at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section]] clearly states, {{tq|Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.}} The changes you propose are NOT "basic facts", would require [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|extraordinary sources]], and would still be subject to editorial judgement on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight|due weight]] of such content. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Suggested Lead Edit v2 == |
== Suggested Lead Edit v2 == |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What does the doll look like? Are there any suitably licensed photos for Wikipedia to use? 86.174.188.81 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC) There is a photo of Robert on his Wikipedia page, but he curses everyone who takes a pic of him without his permission, so pray that whoever took the pic on the page asked permission first.[reply]
Somebody got cursed for your photo. I hope you're happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.202.208 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interview where Don Mancini, creator of the Child's Play franchise, says that "Chucky" was inspired by earlier films and not "Robert", and was not originally written as being a 'voodoo' doll:
How do you put a picture on the Wikipedia page?🤨 Ballora minicreepa (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't very developed and is missing a tone of information on its subject including it's history, and references in popular culture which need to be added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not very detailed when it comes to the doll's history. Might consider expanding t as well as the above mentioned info.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this page be protected. There's a growing edit war of people trying to add a section about films based on the doll, and it seems consensus is to have no such section 134340Goat (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just had to do so again. I've now alerted an admin to the situation. 134340Goat (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should add a section either here or in the article itself for users to apologize for looking at this photo of Robert without his express permission. It's known that bad things happen to people who do and neglect to apologize. 2600:1017:B125:79A4:D53A:14C2:B7D1:ECCB (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tajotep has added an infobox to this article. I'm not sure this is desirable. The infobox doesn't really convey a lot of information, and I think "infobox toy" is intended for a kind of toy (like "Rubik's Cube" or a particular Lego set), not a specific individual toy. The "Company" field looks a bit out of place in this case. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the scientific source for this legend? Are you sure it was not made by the firm who exhibited the doll? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are not really to WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All information within the update I attempted to publish is backed by credible and independent sources. The WP:FRIND sources you listed...No, the sources I listed were not WP:FRIND. They were examples of what are not credible or independent sources, and your edits intentionally or unintentionally were lending credibility to supernatural claims. This tells me you may have a problem with English comprehension or some other issue. Editing WP:FRINGE topics such as supposedly haunted dolls can be a steep learning curve (see WP:NOTNEUTRAL). I suggest you start editing articles about some noncontroversial topic to familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's polices before you attempt to improve WP:FRINGE articles. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
William Shatner tempted fate in 2012 by mocking" a "
reputedly haunted doll", cited to an online pirate copy of "Weird or What?" hosted by William Shatner. Rjjiii (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Gabriellemcnell I noticed this edit where you cut and paste a new version of the article to the Talk page for review, which was reverted because, well, there are better ways to suggest changes. From what I saw, there are some big problems with your proposed rewrite. Come-on's like "Robert's popularity has grown immensely due to his reputation for cursing anyone who disrespects him" and "he is believed to be the world's most terrifying haunted doll" have no place in the lead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a clickbait site or a carnival sideshow.
Most sources you propose to cite are not reliable for the purpose of building an NPOV article. Some examples:
Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. It's not in the business of giving credulous treatment to superstitious beliefs. When it comes to WP:FRINGE topics (and a doll supposedly with supernatural abilities haunting and cursing people is definitely a fringe topic) we look to sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, sources that have no investment in selling tours or room reservations or convincing people that ghosts are real. We call these WP:FRIND sources. I have not located any WP:FRIND sources for this topic. Typically, a lack of any sources that critique or analyze the subject indicates it is not taken seriously by expert sources, and so may not be notable. So the encyclopedia is a bit challenged to cover this topic in an NPOV manner.
That said, we are presently using some WP:PRIMARY sources such as KWAH.org for noncontroversial facts, and in a very limited way. We cannot cite it for sensational claims and promotional hype about the doll such as you have proposed.
Note that the "History" section of the article only reports relevant and verifiable facts such as the doll's origin, owners, location, etc. Trying to mix supernatural claims into this section such as you have attempted isn't appropriate. The article has a separate section documenting the "Legend" where we frame the supernatural claims as claims. We're careful to use NPOV language when describing these claims a legend and not reality. We also avoid WP:UNDUE weight on such claims, which naturally limits the amount of coverage the encyclopedia gives to such details which typically accompany paranormal hype.
Also it's not enough to say you (an editor) think the subject has historical and cultural significance. Third party secondary WP:FRIND sources must explicitly state this conclusion so we can cite them and summarize what they say.
Sorry this sounds like a lecture but I'll mention this again: Wikipedia's byzantine editorial policies and guidelines incorporate a great many subtleties not readily apparent to a new editor. It's a steep learning curve. I don't recommend you choose as your goal a rewrite of an existing article as your first edit, especially one in a WP:FRINGE topic area. You said you want to correct inaccurate or outdated misinformation you feel is presently contained in the article. Perhaps you can list these here on the Talk page, and we can discuss them one at a time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
working with the Key West Art and Historical Society who are the foremost experts, and rights holders, on Robert, which could mean that the KWAHS "rights holders" assume they have exclusive control of the content of the Wikipedia article (this usually happens at BLPs where the subject of an article or their legal representative shows up on the Talk page and demands editorial control). I also think they misunderstand WP:COI. Claiming that
KWAHS interest in Robert is solely for preservation and accessibility purposes. There is no financial motive for them regarding Robertwould only make sense if the museum didn't charge admission fees or offer special $29 Robert-focused tours. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.The changes you propose are NOT "basic facts", would require extraordinary sources, and would still be subject to editorial judgement on the due weight of such content. Donald Albury 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
Altering my proposed edit as user @AndyTheGrump raised an issue with Robert's affiliation with the East Martello Museum:
The lead in this article leaves out some crucial information about Robert and his current status. I'd like to suggest the following edit to the lead:
Robert the Doll is an allegedly haunted doll exhibited at the East Martello Museum in Key West, Florida. Robert was once owned by painter, author, and Key West resident Robert Eugene Otto. He was brought to the museum after supposed hauntings, maintaining status as a paranormal phenomenon. Robert has daily visitors, thousands of which have written letters addressed directly to him.
Open to suggestions, kindly let me know!
Thanks~ Gabriellemcnell (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]