Talk:Family Ties

No reference to shared birth date coincidence

Shouldn't there be some mention of the remarkable coincidence that Baxter-Birney and Gross were both born on Saturday, June 21, 1947? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:4E2:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Inspiration for name of Mallory

There is a citation on the Mallory entry that says Mallory Prestlien Cangialosi (1962-2005), a female television producer, was the inspiration for the character of Mallory. But no citation is offered. Mallory Prestlien Cangialosi is the daughter of actors Marcia Henderson and Robert_Ivers.

Jcravens42 21:19, 15 July 2015‎

Andy birth year

It says in part of the article that Andy was born in 1984 (I don't remember this being specifically stated in an episode, so I assume this is when it aired). Should we just leave the year out since he ages like many sitcom children? I mean, he turns 6 in a 1988 episode. 184.53.33.4 (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Odd original research

I agree with SQGibbon; this information is inappropriate in tone, unsourced, with fan-like emphasis on another TV program, and appears to consist solely of original research. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding edits by SQGibbon 18:02 on 1 June, 2018

Disclosure: I have not edited an article in Wikipedia before, and so am not very versed in the general rules and regulations for doing so (I was under the impression anyone could edit if they provided true information). Thus, I am not versed in how these discussions work either. It took me a while to figure out how to use the "talk" feature even to get to this point. I'm not entirely sure I'm writing this in the correct place. If need requires it, you may refer to me as "Newbie editor."

SQGibbon is removing material I contributed to the "References in Other Media" section of the "Family Ties" article.

The reasons listed are as follows: "Some of this is puffery and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The rest is unsourced and much of it is original research WP:OR. We need reliable sources discussing all of this and then cite them."

Reply: I fail to see how the references here are any different from the others, excepting in that they are more detailed. Let's think about the statement above:

"Puffery" = please define and explain (with specific reference to the edited material, please).

"doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" - please explain; what is the purpose of an encyclopedia, and WHAT should be excluded from an encyclopedia entry and WHY (again specific references to the edited material in question along with justification for the irrelevance of each would be appreciated)?

"the rest is unsourced" = do you mean that these aren't quotes from some secondary material? If I quote an article or interview, I will need to cite that material. However, each of these references is to a direct or indirect reference to "Family Ties" within an episode of a TV show (Psych). Each instance is referred to the specific season, episode, and original air date. So please explain to me how any of these fail in the citation department.

"much of it is original research" = if you mean to say that I myself hunted down each of these references, then you are correct - it is my original research. Please explain why it is bad for me to do my own leg-work to locate information that is not reported anywhere else and which is, by the way, easily accessible to anyone who has access to these episodes (or their scripts, which are all online). And if you're worried I'm not getting proper credit for my "research," I'm fine. I don't desire the recognition. This information is free for whomever would like to benefit from it without having to track this down, unless they want to (in which case, they can do so just like I did).

As a final word, I'd like to know by what authority my edits are being removed? My understanding is that wikipedia articles are open to contribution by anyone. Misinformation should be discouraged and removed, but if an edit provides additional information that may be of interest to some readers, why would you remove it (for any reason)? You cannot say that the information provided is irrelevant because that will be relative to readers. For instance, I have exactly zero interest in any of the other "references in other media" listed in this section. I suspect I am not alone. I think there will be many readers who couldn't care less about the references I've included. That's fair. The question I have is why my references are removed and others permitted to stay, given that they are of the same nature (excepting, again, the fact that mine are more thorough - something that is generally taken to be a virtue rather than a vice).

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.163.164 (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

SQGibbon is correct, please review WP:PUFFERY, WP:OR and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. I have also placed a welcome notice on your talk page with many helpful links. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I'll try to briefly deal with some of your questions.

Puffery: On Wikipedia we expect editors to always take a neutral voice, the sort of thing you'd expect in other encyclopedias or in journalism. Take your line "on USA's fantastic buddy detective dramedy Psych", the "fantastic" part is not encyclopedic and does not belong. On Wikipedia we do not get to express our personal opinions.

Original research: This is where an editor (you, in this case) supplies their own understanding or interpretation of events. Wikipedia requires that every fact that is asserted can be cited to an independent and reliable source that other editors can access. You do not fit the definition of a reliable source. A reliable source is, roughly, a source that is notable (by Wikipedia standards, meaning covered in depth by other independent and reliable sources), known for objective reporting and deemed a reliable source by professionals in that field. There are always grey areas in these things, but we editors have agreed that random anonymous people are not reliable sources.

Unsourced: In these kinds of situations we also expect that any analysis actually be supported by reliable sources. So it's not enough for you to notice these references to Family Ties in Psych, we need secondary, independent, published reliable sources to have done the research and made those connections and ideally by verifying those claims with the creators of the show.

Anyone can edit: Take your two statements: "I was under the impression anyone could edit if they provided true information". We have no way of determining truth. Instead we rely on secondary, independent, published reliable sources to do the research and we report on what they say. We, as editors, do not judge the veracity of any claim but only report on the research done by others. "My understanding is that wikipedia articles are open to contribution by anyone". This is true but we editors over the years have achieved many, many consensus views concerning guidelines and policies about the kind of content that is acceptable on Wikipedia. We enforce these policies and use the guidelines to guide how we edit and what edits we accept. Wikipedia is not an anarchic free-for-all where anyone can write anything no matter how good their intentions are.

If you have any more questions or comments about editing Wikipedia feel free to ask me on my talk page. SQGibbon (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The Keatons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I think this statement needs a citation or other support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.90.146 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Tone

I think the phrase "ex-hippie liberal," used several times in this article to describe the elder Keatons, is a bit loaded... sounds almost like a pejorative....PurpleChez (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)