Talk:David Firth (animator)

Sources for Works

The following snippet and source has been removed as being a 'primary source'.

and contributed an interview to Alan Yentob for Imagine.

The reliability of the BBC as a Publically Funded Broadcaster has been well rehearsed in Wikipedia. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Collective_(BBC) and so on. It is a reliable source. The idea that an Arts Current Affairs Programme from the BBC, that has existed for a decade to comment on the Arts, might be a primary source for Firth is tenuous. The Programme clearly shows an edited interview with credits given to Researchers from MIT and Cambridge and a professional Online Editor as well as a Film Researcher. There is, therefore, no question of original research - the BBC have done the research - or it being a Primary Source for Firth - the BBC have structured the message. Yes, it could be argued to be a Primary Source for Yentob but Yentob is not the subject of the article.

The interview is formed and contexualised by someone other that Firth and Firth's role was to participate under the Editorial Control of the BBC or not take part at all. The reliability is with the BBC as a notable secondary source. This should not need repeating.

It can be seen here {Youtube|id=AmeGJ0xWNbc|title=David Firth Interview Alan Yentob} which extracts the interview from the BBC Work but clearly shows it is not Firth's work. Perhaps it would be appropriate in a critical response section. In addition the programme was reported in the Radio Times and within Television Listings for a range of newspapers. I do not have those to hand. They are frequently used to update user content websites which places those reports out of scope for reliabilty for well rehearsed reasons. Ignoring the interview and watching the credits actually clarifies that this is reliable secondary source interview with a neutral point of view.

Not everybody gets interviewed by Alan Yentob. It suggests that Firth actually is notable enough for reliable sources with research status - MIT and Cambridge - to evaluate his body of work. It is certainly not a primary source, nor original research, nor unreliable, nor excessive. It is an adequate reference point that fits in with the consensus around the BBC as a source.

I am unwilling to put it back in as that would seem bad faith despite the thoroughly respectable grounds for inclusion. If someone is inclined to add the reference in again, I believe the article will be improved by highlighting that Firth warrants critical evaluation by reliable sources and that there is a serious, reliable, context for the evaluation of Animators in general but also for what Firth does, in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenestre (talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

References

So, I thought about this for a bit and couldn't really figure out what the issue was. I opened a thread at the help desk to get a third opinion. As I understand it, the issue with these kinds of claims ("He did X." [source: X]) is that you're not citing secondary coverage, which makes the claim undue, meaning there's no justification for inclusion. When making these kinds of claims, you need to cite a source that actually says "he did X", instead of citing X as "evidence" of sorts. It's hard to explain, but I hope that clears it up. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

BBC Documentaries are, very much, secondary coverage. The Wikipedia archives on the BBC as reliable sources indicate that much. There is no issue of claiming "Firth did X" and then citing Firth. Yentob makes the claim about Firth and demonstrates it by referring back to things Firth did, in fact, dowithin a researched documentary that employed a Film Researcher to do exactly what you ask when you say:

you need to cite a source that actually says "he did X", instead of citing X as "evidence" of sorts. It's hard to explain, but I hope that clears it up.

So there is no general contention that the BBC documentary is very much a secondary source. BBC Documentary standards ensure that it is.

Your question at the Help Desk illuminates that the dificulty that seems hard to explain is not with the source in and of itself but with the way in which the significance of the source was articulated:

If I add the following information to an article: "John Doe did an interview", and cite the interview as the source, which policy am I in violation of? Am I using the interview as a primary source or would the claim be considered original research? Can't quite wrap my head around it. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's primary, so you can use it without attribution for WP:ABOUTSELF, and anything that might be self serving of contentious should be attributed. That's my understanding anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more accurate to say "A significant cultural commentator chose to interview and provide commentary on Firth", which is what happened. Perhaps it would help to actually view the interview and so provide a form of words you are happy with.

The documentary is not Firth presenting about himself as a self serving exercise, if you follow the link and watch the interview, and examine the documentary credits and check that it is with the BBC then you can rapidly establish that it is neither original research - the BBC, MIT and Cambridge already did the original research - and is not self-serving: Alan Yentob is an Arts Commentator with a serious track record of presenting Cultural Creators who are significant and whose future careers will be fruitful in the arts sector. That process is actually quite significant in the UK as parts of the "arts industries". It is part of the BBC remit to educate the public.

The same Documentary might be put forward to say that the person making the millionth edit to Wikipedia is notable because that is one of the research findings of the BBC, MIT and Cambridge. Yentob mentions that person in passing so it is actually possible to compare the notability accorded to Firth by Yentob. I am not convinced by the Documentary that there is anything but a passing mention of that edit while there is a prolonged assessment and comment on Firth.

Perhaps you were unable to follow the link. I would suggest actually watching the 'whole' documentary if you are inclined or just this segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmeGJ0xWNbc Th BBC do not permit whole documentaries to appear on Youtube on copyright grounds. which is an obstacle but not a prohibition. I appreciate that video media is time consuming and contentious but that does not preclude actually looking at what is being cited. Which appears to be the significant problem here: how to actually assess the content of the citation itself in order to provide a clear form of words.

The reason that it was removed was 'primary source'. I am unclear as to why you seem to want it to not be added back in given that it is not really a primary source even if the actual wording is poor. Fenestre (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there seemed to have been a misunderstanding. You got it right in the first few paragraphs. I'm not arguing the source can't be used at all, I was just trying to help you understand why it can't be used in the way it was used here. Alternatively, you could extract information from the interview, summarize it, and integrate it into the article that way. Throast (talk | contribs) 06:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

So, is the clunky phrase "A significant cultural commentator chose to interview and provide commentary on Firth" - which we seem to agree is accurate - an effective use of the secondary source? What wording are you suggesting? It is, essentially, the same use just a lack of consensus on the form of words not that the citation was to a primary source. Fenestre (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Any wording akin to what you're proposing would be undue. I refer you to my first comment above where I try to explain this conundrum. You can extract information from the interview, e.g. what Firth talks about, and summarize it (or perhaps quote Firth). That would be a perfectly good use of the source and WP:ABOUTSELF would apply for statements made by Firth in the interview. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not proposing wording. I am clearly asking for suggested wording as the consensus would seem to be that the wording used was inappropriate or, perhaps, lacking neutrality. There is no conundrum. Firth was commented on by a significant cultural commentator on National Television. That is what the entire reference amounts to: Firth is commented upon publically by an acknowledged expert. The really difficult part seems to be the neutrality of expressing that. Which is where your guidance would be invaluable. Goo faith addition of "and contributed an interview to Alan Yentob for Imagine." would clearly fail to communicate something that seems obvious to me and not to you.

The constraints of rules "commenting about yourself" are relevant so direct quotation being avoided would be more productive. Since it is Yentob and others who have structured and edited the interview Firth is not self publishing and self serving interviews are strictly deprecated by the BBC so the dangers of "commenting about yourself" are significantly reduced. Yentob remarks on Firth as one of a number of talented creative individuals who no longer have to tout their wares around television companies or distributors to get them out to the masses and remarks on the work of Firth as Fantastic, dark, animations. Clearly the danger in abstracting from that is falling into some variety of original research. Clearly that is not intended. Hence guidance on proposed wording would ensure a consensus rather than contention.

Which part is obscured to you: that is possibly the best guide to clarity. Fenestre (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't explain it to you any more clearly. I don't intend to propose anything. Again, just trying to explain to you why we can't source A significant cultural commentator chose to interview and provide commentary on Firth or any similar claim directly to the interview. Sorry again. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It needs no clearer explanation. We agree on that. It simply needs a clearer expression of the fact being stated. I am merely disappointed that and contributed an interview to Alan Yentob for Imagine. is without clarity. The linking of Yentob and Imagine would allow a Reader to draw their own conclusion and so avoid any Editor imposing a point of view. Which would surely be the purpose. Surely that is neutral enough.

To be clear "A significant cultural commentator chose to interview and provide commentary on Firth" was never a suggested wording. Had and contributed an interview to Walter Cronkite for CBS been the phrasing the idea that "A significant cultural commentator chose to interview and provide commentary on Firth" would be equally possible to say. it is not about wanting to source that. The sourcing is of an alternative to and contributed an interview to Alan Yentob for Imagine. The importance of a Walter Cronkite interview might not be obvious in the UK and an Alan Yentob interview in the US but that is not the role of Editors to change. Fenestre (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead role

Is "independent animator" (emphasis on "independent") and "screenwriter" really what he's commonly described as in reliable sources, MOS:ROLEBIO? From what I gather, I'd simply opt for "animator". Throast (talk | contribs) 22:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It is how he was described at the Glasgow Film Festival in their Brochure already linked. He is not formally attached to a studio and so, for all intents and purposes of Arts Council, British Film Institute and National Lottery Funding the consensus would be that he falls to the job description "independent animator". It is little more than the common description anybody would be given and so it is not particularly a controversial term. The same applies to the screenwriter. Yentob used the term as did the Raindance festival. The UK Arts Community consists of, for the most part, independent X because that is the nature of the UK Arts Community. Unless you consider Firth to be an 'independent animator' he would be regarded as a 'work for hire jobbing animator' and thus of no notability at all. Fenestre (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

We, meaning us editors, do not get to determine his occupation. I've taken a look at every source currently used in the article: Animation Magazine, The Daily Dot, The Independent, BBC, Pitchfork, and Fact Magazine all simply call Firth an "animator". Spotlight calls him an "online animator", and, apparently, Glasgow Film Festival calls him an "independent animator". Yentob does not call Firth a screenwriter, at least not in this video. That video also refers to him simply as an "animator". I think we can conclude that, per MOS:ROLEBIO, he's most commonly described simply as an "animator". Throast (talk | contribs) 16:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely not Wikipedia Editors' place to determine his occupation. But that is the common language description used by the Arts Council et al when determining his position within the Arts Community. If he is not an independent then then he is attached. It is not really contentious in the Arts. If he were to work for Disney he would be called a Disney Animator. If he were Nick Park he might be described as an Aardman Animator or an Independent Animator depending on the stage of his career. It really is not unusual language. 'Independents' are so common they have their own exhibitions: https://independentsbiennial.com/ - which encompass a wide range of the arts - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/united-kingdom/england/london/articles/Londons-independent-art-galleries-ten-of-the-best/ - it is not really contentious. We agree he is an Animator and he happens to be independent. Nothing about that determines his occupation. Fenestre (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In determining someone's occupation on Wikipedia, we do nothing more than a) look at sources about that person, b) evaluate what sources most commonly call that person. We don't apply our own judgment about what most accurately describes that person. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely correct there can be no application of judgement. There is no application of judgement. Judgement would be to fail to call him an Independent Animator as that would go against the reference for Glasgow Film Festival and common British idiom. The judgement was made by Glasgow Film Festival - again an organisation driven and funded by Public Money - in the previously linked Festival Catalogue. The Glasgow Film Festival catalogue has been found worthy of use for other parts of Wikipedia for Independent Film Makers. So it really is not controversial. The only problem then would be crowding every single word with a citation which is clearly counterproductive.

We certainly cannot just rely on what we gather as a sole criterion otherwise we end up up tipping into original research which is not productive. The Glasgow Film Festival used the phrase and it is casually British Idiom in the Arts as evidenced by the Festival Catalogue. If we must verify and cite for each word the danger is that citation is purely reflective of the Editors not the subject matter. Which, again, is counterproductive. Fenestre (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I encourage you to read MOS:ROLEBIO if you haven't done so already. One source doesn't constitute "commonly described". If we can't agree, I offer to open an RfC and get some third opinions. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)