Talk:Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta

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

Redirect classification[edit]

This is a redirect from a long name, not an incorrect one. The program's title card and, until removed, article used the longer form name Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta so it cannot be incorrect. This redirect should be marked as {{R from long name}} -- Whats new?(talk) 05:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence from Hitchens that they used this as a "long name" at all. Check his books that mention this programme (The Missionary Position (page xii), Christopher Hitchens: The Last Interview And Other Conversations). It is an incorrect interpretation of the title screen (which if you watch it only displays "Mother Teresa of Calcutta" briefly). Therefore, it is incorrect name. These arguments were made and refuted in the recent RM discussion where you made a suggestion for natural disambiguation. When your personal interpretation of a primary source conflicts with other sources close to the subject, you should be willing to accept that they aren't correct - even if you can keyword search and find a scant few disconnected sources which have also made the same error. If you can find ANY reliably source close to this show (Hitchens, director, network, or industry publication) that use this "long name", please provide them. -- Netoholic @ 07:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The program itself uses the name. It is not uncommon for a short name to be used, even by its creators or networks, and I gave examples of this in the RM discussion you mentioned (eg. Border Security: Australia's Front Line [1] [2], Law & Order: Special Victims Unit [3] [4], etc. It doesn't make the title Hell's Angel wrong, it just makes it a shortened and, to some, a more recognisable title. The title from the primary source can't be discounted as "incorrect". -- Whats new?(talk) 23:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is YOUR interpretation of the primary source. That interpretation is disputed, and you continue to refuse to provide sources close to the production, but instead insist on giving examples related to completely different shows - that is non-responsive to THIS topic. -- Netoholic @ 23:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How else do you interpret the primary source? -- Whats new?(talk) 00:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really, never. WP:PRIMARY says: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. We do use primary sources in some contexts - like writing plot summaries and putting together cast lists. But as soon as someone disputes such a use, we have to fall back to using other sources. -- Netoholic @ 01:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY also states A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge which is all I have done. It is a statement of fact that this title is used by accessing the primary source (in this case, viewing the documentary in question). Reading the title card does not require "specialized knowledge". Further, there are reliable secondary sources that also use the title. WP:PRIMARY also states Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While not all secondary sources use the long name, many do, thus satisfying this requirement of needing "a reliable secondary source for that interpretation": [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]-- Whats new?(talk) 02:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you'll consider me an "educated person", and I would see it different. Which is why I researched as hard as possible when this suggestion came up in the RM, and I could not find any source close to the production which uses such a "long name". It is regrettable that the title card is inconclusive, and not surprising that you can use a keyword search to cherry-pick a few examples where this mistake or misunderstanding also exists. But it is flatly FALSE to claim "many" sources use it. You keyword-searched and found a few, and that's fine, but so many more sources exist that do not use this wrong name that it would be impractical for me to list them all, but you may recall that in the RM I posted twenty (an arbitrarily much larger number) other high-quality, journalistic sources from most of the EXACT same outlets you used like Washington Post, etc. which state the title is not as you propose: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. So I'm settling on the books by Hitchens himself and any other sources relative close to the production. Rather than repeat yourself and argue in circles, find something that is convincing or proof-worthy. --Netoholic @ 05:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your statement "It is regrettable that the title card is inconclusive". Can you explain what is inconclusive about it? -- Whats new?(talk) 05:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Between just you and I, we cannot agree on a conclusion as to whether "Mother Teresa of Calcutta" is part of a long title (you), or just some explanatory text tacked on (me). The primary source, for editors on Wikipedia, is inconclusive, and we must rely on secondary sources. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand what you think is "inconclusive." Could you please explain what is inconclusive about the title card? There are many shows which is format the program name in such a way as this documentary's title card, eg. The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth, Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story, The Hills: New Beginnings, The Force: Behind the Line. I don't understand your basis for calling it "explanatory text tacked on" -- Whats new?(talk) 06:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As before, I refuse to debate other titles than this one. Deja vu. -- Netoholic @ 06:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a 3O -- Whats new?(talk) 06:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I have went through all the sources provided on this talk page. Several reliable secondary sources report the title as "Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta". No reason has been given to dispute the reliability of those sources, and I cannot find any myself. Further, no sources provided claim the long version is incorrect, and not including the long title in every article is not evidence of it being incorrect. I would note that most of the sources that do not contain the long title are not directly discussing the film and the mention of the film is trivial (and so the long title would be less necessary). This seems to be a clear case of a long name redirect and not an incorrect name. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wallyfromdilbert for your thoughts. I think you have put forward a very well-reasoned argument -- Whats new?(talk) 02:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your comments, Wallyfromdilbert, but you failed to give more weight to the sources close to the producers/writers on this topic. While What's New? could scarcely find his eight links that also incorrectly interpreted the name of the program, I provided 20 that did not use a "long name", and I could provide 20, 50, 100 more. --Netoholic @ 12:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic: The number of links you could find is irrelevant. That is simply citation overkill. Eight reliable sources is plenty for the long name redirect. Similarly, the "sources close to the producers/writers" are largely irrelevant when there are numerous reliable secondary sources. "Long name" is not required to be a proven "official name". I cannot find any policies or talk page discussions on the templates that would support that position, and you have not presented any. Indeed, the ordinary article naming conventions contradict your position: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". I would also suggest you read the additional explanations on official names. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If numerous reliable secondary sources use the "long name" then it is incorrect to use the "incorrect name" redirect. I would suggest you take your dispute to DRN if you continue to disagree or try to make a change through the Redirect WikiProject. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: You're at risk of edit warring now. I sought a third opinion who did not agree with your position and you continue to not accept other editors have a different view from yours. Wikipedia is based on consensus: if you want to take the matter further than do, but given three editors have suggested "long name" is the appropriate redirect term, and none have shown support for "incorrect name" to date, you need to accept current consensus. The edit summary "per facts" is not a fair or helpful statement and bordering on plain arrogant -- Whats new?(talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3O is not binding, and consensus is not a vote among 3 people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge, and claiming this is a long title is a claim of fact that this is a title that is a complete, more complete or longer version of the topic's name - an WP:OFFICIALNAME claim which does not bear out in the sources. It is simply, provable an incorrect name used in a very few sources, and should remain properly labelled as such so that editors aren't tempted to use this as a link. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully then, what would a consensus on this issue look like to you? -- Whats new?(talk) 21:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic Please do not distort my third opinion. A long name is not the same as an official name (and the long name redirect already says not to use it as a link). Further, even if it did apply, the policy of WP:OFFICIALNAME goes by reliable secondary sources, which were provided. You have not presented a single source that claims the long name is incorrect. Therefore, the reliable sources should be followed. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous standard - of course it would be near-impossible to find a source that says explicitly "Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta is an incorrect title". What I have done though is provide a number of sources which are close to the producers/writers (direct writings or interviews) where no such "long title" is mentioned. I'll invoke Hitchens's razor (appropriate in this case) - If there is no evidence from the producers/writers that this is a "long title", then such a claim can be dismissed without evidence. -- Netoholic @ 21:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said that if one source, close to the producers/writers, could be provided, that I would change my mind on it. I have tried every avenue to find anything like that, but been unsuccessful. In fact, I recently did a search via Newspapers.com, which I just got access to, specifically looking for information on the title of the program, and added what I found to the article. In those 3 sources, the specific topic of the title is brought up in detail, and in none of them is there a mention of a "long title". I also found some context around the Baltimore Sun source you linked was about a local protest of a screening of the documentary. The screening event was announced as "Hell's Angel — Mother Teresa of Calcutta" which I think is what leads to the confusion in that article. Added: The Baltimore Sun (Lippman) source I added is a much more reliable source on this topic - it is a based on a sit-down interview with Hitchens himself while he was there for the screening. There are two paragraphs where the title of the film is explicitly discussed and no "long title" is mentioned. This Lippman piece was front page of the section, and was picked up for reprints in dozens of other papers. -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic: Your original research is irrelevant. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. I have removed the category entirely for now, since it is demonstrably false that the long name is "incorrect" based on the sources on this talk page. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Original research"? Really? We are within our rights to evaluate sources and give them proper WP:DUEWEIGHT. In this case, sources close to the producers/writers should be weighted more for determining if this was a "long title" intended by them or not. Likewise is true for giving more weight to sources which are reprinted highly in other papers over one-off blurbs on religion blogs as given by Whats_new?. I reject your accusation of OR and direct you to retract it. -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You interpretation of multiple reliable sources using a name because you "think" they are confused by a screening event is WP:OR. You claim that some sources do not use the long name because it is "incorrect" is WP:OR when not a single source says anything about it not having a long name or the long name being incorrect. I suggest you actually find evidence for your position rather than basing it on your opinions. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a talk page discussion, not an article. I can speculate as to the source of the confusion here on a talk page. I could say the same about you - that it is "original research" to designate this as a "long name" without a source that calls it that. But I can recognize that virtually no source is going to explicitly call this either "incorrect" or a "long name"... so yes, for our purposes on Wikipedia we can evaluate DUEWEIGHT and speculate on the best sources for determining our internal classification of this redirect. If you are so convinced that this is the "long name" of the program, why are you arguing here and not on the talk page of the article itself to get mention of a "long name" included in the article? -- Netoholic @ 22:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The title used in the program itself is the long name, and you've given that zero weight the whole way through. You cannot seriously suggest the own program's title card called itself by an incorrect name. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of the "title card" is original research, and disputed. Explanatory text is not the same as a subtitle. If this really is a "long name" title... why has every source close the producers/writers failed to use it? -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed solely by you, and I fail to see how reading is OR. If it is not a long name, why are there sources that use it? -- Whats new?(talk) 04:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed by the vast majority of sources which mentions only "Hell's Angel" and not any long title - especially the sources that interview Hitchens directly and bring up the specific topic of how the documentary got its title. You found only about 8 that use it. The ones that mention the protest in Baltimore may be confusing to the name of the screening event with the name of the film - an easy mistake. The others might be going off the title screen as you are - again, another easy source of confusion. Considering there are hundreds of sources about this documentary... finding 8 is a lot like finding 1, or zero. -- Netoholic @ 07:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wally has already explained why that is not accurate. Three editors disagree with your point of view. I would suggest you either accept there is a consensus against your argument or make your argument elsewhere. If you continue to revert I will report. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let's take it easy here. This is just a discussion about which redirect template should be used, and shouldn't be fuelling or rehashing a move discussion. This doesn't affect the article itself at all and is about the furthest dark corner that you can find in Wikipedia (i.e.: no readers and extremely few editors will ever see this). I would suggest accepting the 3O and moving on. I think we can find better uses for our time and energy. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're an encyclopedia and should never accept inclusion of an unverifiable claim just for the sake of expediency. -- Netoholic @ 15:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic, this is not an issue of unverified information. Instead, you dispute the statements of the reliable sources provided above, including several newspapers and published books, because you have inserted an additional requirement that the full title must be stated by the producers. Please do not purposely distort the debate. Thank you. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say it as a requirement. Certainly, if a majority of sources used a long title, then that would be a different story. But for the purposes of determining if there is a long title, certainly information closely-originating from the production team should be weighted more. The fact that the no source close to the production ever uses a long title is evidence that it is indeed not such, and describing it as a "more complete" title is blatant misinformation. -- Netoholic @ 21:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects § Categories just for redirects states that This categorization is intended for Wikipedia editors, not readers. Redirect categories are hidden maintenance categories, and are not part of the encyclopedic content. The main purpose of the templates is to aid in maintenance. From what the proposed rcat templates state, they're fairly inclusive. (There's lots of comparative information at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages.) {{R from long name}} includes titles that are a "longer version of the topic's name". I don't see where it has to be an official longer name, just a longer name that has been used. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have {{R from incorrect name}} which is more appropriate categorization because this redirect includes a portion which is not correctly part of the name. By your logic, because we have {{R from long name}} and {{R from short name}}, then there would be no case to use {{R from incorrect name}}. The long name and short name should be for when there is some official indication for it (subtitles, etc.), and "incorrect name" for when there is not. -- Netoholic @ 09:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: I agree, but if editors can't consent on something specific, we try for the more general. If not everyone can agree that it's incorrect, maybe we can at least agree that it's longer. At the risk of asking a stupid question, is there any reason why we can't have both templates?
In addition to the two rcat templates discussed, I found two others that might apply:
Note that "long name" is a subcategory of "alternative name", so those shouldn't both be used. There don't otherwise seem to be any technical reasons not to have multiple rcat templates from the above. "alternative name" is the most general and I'd think would cause the least controversy if there's no consensus for anything else. Personally, I feel that "more specific name" seems to fit this case the best, with "Mother Teresa of Calcutta" being that extraneous identifier. (Note that 'extraneous' can mean "of external origin" so this can apply if it is felt to be a non-official title.) Thoughts? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main point about using {{R from incorrect name}} is that we do not want Wikipedia editors to wikilink to that name. Its useful for searching, but not otherwise. Like you said, these categories are mostly for editors, and noting it as "incorrect" is to communicate to editors not to use it in that form. "short name", "long name", or "alternative name" may be appropriate to link to in some contexts, but we don't want to link to an incorrect name, which is the case here. I could easily imagine someone making a bot which would inform editors who mistakenly link to a redirect categorized as "incorrect name" so they can fix their link - much like we have a bot that informs editors who link directly to DAB pages rather than a specific topic. -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hell%27s_Angel:_Mother_Teresa_of_Calcutta&oldid=887297083"