Talk:David Quinn (actor)/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

2 or 3 Categories?

I guess there's probably a suggestive dispute about how many categories there should be. I like having the Teacher bio in the article, but someone who knows the man best should add more content to it. --TreyGreenawalt 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


I found something interesting

That's just sad, I found an informal personal website of a guy named Brock who looks up to Quinn: http://g.1asphost.com/dquinn/dquinn.asp

I think this comment might need a little more explanation. Apparently it offended someone and was deleted without explanation.

TheRingess 05:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Link is now dead. TheRingess 07:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess the link really did offended someone. Someone probably reported the site.
That site's got a pretty nasty way of handling 404 Not Founds; the URL above redirects via JavaScript to another page, which redirects by HTTP redirect to yet another one, managing to break my back button in the process; also, it succeeded in throwing up a popup for me even though I've got Mozilla configured specifically to stop them. *Dan T.* 18:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference section

What is the objection to the references section as of the last version before revert.

As far as I could see, all of the links were reputable sources and contained neutral information.


TheRingess 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

Can we talk about the objections to the inclusion of stubs in this article. Do we feel that the article is long enough that stubs aren't warranted, or are the stubs the wrong categories?

TheRingess 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reinstated the stubs.

A stub classification simply means that the article is short and could be expanded.

If this is a controversial edit, please state so here.

TheRingess 09:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Emmy

Can we provide a date and category for the Emmy?


TheRingess 05:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Theatre camp info

Does anyone have a suggestion as to how we can provide a source for this material?

I surfed to the website of the camp, and could not find a mention there of the material?

What can we use as a reliable source for this material?

TheRingess 05:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and stuck a request for a citation here (only for the second sentence about roommates). I don't think that is an unreasonable request, but someone else may have a different viewpoint and feel that I am being unreasonable, if so, please respond.

I noticed that a previous editor supplied a link to Blumenkrantz' website, I went to the site, but could find no reference that supports the material here. Taking another look at the camp's website I find no supporting material.

I also think that if we can't find a source within 24 hours, it's safe to assume that we could delete the second sentence as unverifiable.

TheRingess 09:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


I deleted the sentence about the roommates.

I did visit the camp's website again, and the alumni page had no info. Looking around the site, it seems that much of the info is available only to alumni.

If you find a source feel free to reinstate the material.

TheRingess 05:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Info about Degrees

How about the info about the degrees that he earned?

This seemed like useful info for a biographical article and had a credible verifiable source.

What was the objection to the inclusion of that information?

TheRingess 06:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reinstated the material about the courses he teaches and the degrees he has.

All the material seems to me to be neutral and easily verifiable.

If this edit is undesirable to fellow editors, please provide an explanation here.

TheRingess 09:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Added the dates he hosted 3-2-1 Contact, since they are documented in the article about the show and I simply feel that they improve the article, a little.

TheRingess 09:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor style comment

Basically, the word currently, whenever possible should be replaced by a specific date.

Many articles in Wikipedia might be around for years (though not this one) and the word currently will have the little or no meaning several years down the road.

TheRingess 09:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Peabody award

I went ahead and changed the external link here into an internal one.

This makes it easier for any interested reader, not familiar with the award, to find out more about it.

TheRingess 09:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Teacher bio

I stuck the unreferencedsect template in here, because the material will need sources. Plus the material does seem to be a copy of material from another website (I found something interesting section above for link) and no mention of permission to use the material.

Just a note, the mentioned link is now dead, so the second sentence about the material being a copy is no longer valid.TheRingess 04:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

TheRingess 04:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC) The first sentence about teaching and degrees has verifiable sources already.

I think this material might be rather difficult as it reads, to provide verifiable sources, since no names, dates, locations, etc. are specified.

Please respond here if you disagree with this assessment.

TheRingess 15:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the material, at best since there are no dates, no citation it was original research.

I'll include the deleted material here for reference in case of dispute

He is noted for driving his students to remarkable academic accomplishments. One, a 17-year old, found his original research published in a major journal. Many others have received full ride scholarships to a variety of reknown universities (Harvard, MIT, Amherst, Columbia, Mudd, NYU, UCLA). His last TOK class received over 1 million dollars in scholarships. His other "talents" include his encyclopedic full recall of American Musicals, his ability to read over 1500 words a minute (clocked), and his fondness for coffee cake.

TheRingess 04:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't have the research to support it, I know for a fact that this teacher biography is sadly true. I say sadly because he is an amazing reader, able to read a lot of IB extended essays in one class period. Yes, he loves coffee cake, the kind with a lot of crumbs on top. And he loves American Musicals. It is not sad, however, that it is very true that Mr. Quinn was able to get a lot of students into the schools of their dreams. I know a teenage prodigy that was able to get into Harvard and MIT. Well, although I don't have the citations to back it up, the material here is true. I hope there's another way to convince you that it should be added back. --67.183.56.51 16:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia's guidelines to original research. If after reading that you feel that the material is not original research then we should discuss it further. Another way of looking at it, is that the truth of a statement is absolutely necessary for inclusion in an article but by itself it is not sufficient to guarantee that the material will be included.

17:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Something drew me to this article. Explain why you say the material is original research. And thanks for the original research link that doesn't work. --ReRateofMice 00:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
There we go, link should work now. Please read it, if you haven't already, and then we can discuss it.TheRingess 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading it, I don't think it is original research:

  • it introduces a theory or method of solution - it does not introduce a theory, it's not even a theory, it's true
  • it introduces original ideas - the ideas weren't fabricated by some bored random fool in the world
  • it defines new terms - what new terms?
  • it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms - nope
  • it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position - it's not an argument nor does it start one
  • it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source - not involved
  • it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source - there's no bias, it's true

It's not original research. Explain why it is by refuting what I had to say above. It's just extremely hard to by finding a source with the information. --ReRateofMice 01:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Currently I do not have a lot of time, so I will simply express my concerns about the first sentence and then later when I have some time address the points you raised about the other points in the material.

He is noted for driving his students to remarkable academic accomplishments

First off, it's my opinion that this is fits the 7th statement above. It is a synthesis.

  1. Since no source is specified we do not know who arrived at this conclusion.
  2. Nor do we know the criteria they used to arrive at this conclusion. By its very nature the sentence implies that someone, somewhere, somehow evaluated Mr. Quinn's performance as a teacher, and arrived at the above conclusion. Without a source, without knowing the criteria, an average Wikipedia reader cannot begin to evaluate whether or not it is verifiable or neutral.
  3. Would a different evaluator, using the same set of criteria, arrive at a different conclusion? Until the source and criteria are specified, the Wikipedia cannot possibly determine anything about the statement.
  4. Also at least in this context, "driving" is not a well understood term? I think it reasonable, that average readers might interpret the word differently, leading to confusion over what the statement means. At the very least, an interested editor could replace the term with specific examples of how he "drives" the students, which relates to knowing the criteria that was used to arrive at the statement above.
  5. Also, since we do not know who arrived at the conclusion, when or where, we have no way of knowing whether or not their data is within the public domain. Hence we have no way of knowing whether or not the above statement represents a violation of Mr. Quinn's rights to privacy. For it to be in the public domain, he must have given his consent for the evaluation to be released publicly.

Once again, your points are noted above and I thank you for taking the time to respond. When I have more time, I will respond regarding the rest of the material.

It might help to also take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and citing sources.

One, a 17-year old, found his original research published in a major journal

I admit, that this is statement probably does not qualify as original research. However, to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability someone will probably need to:

  • Supply the name of the journal, the date of publication, the title of the article and the page numbers.
  • Given the above, we can then eliminate the word "one" and replace it with the name of the student.
  • Once that is provided, the info probably should also go into the article about the school.
  • Once again, without knowing the name of the journal and the publishing info, we cannot know whether or not we have violated anyone's right to privacy.
Many others have received full ride scholarships to a variety of reknown universities (Harvard, MIT, Amherst, Columbia, Mudd, NYU, UCLA)

This also falls into the category of synthesis. Without knowing who collected the info, who checked their research for accuracy, we cannot verify the statement. If we know who did it, when and where they published their findings, then it is not original research.

His last TOK class received over 1 million dollars in scholarships

Ditto. We need a date for this sentence. Since we don't know when or who or how they collected their info. What does over 1 million mean? 1.5 million? 2 million? 10 million? Who double checked the figures. And once we have a source shouldn't this go on the entry for the school? How about other classes? Did the same person collect the info for other classes?

His other "talents" include his encyclopedic full recall of American Musicals, his ability to read over 1500 words a minute (clocked), and his fondness for coffee cake.

Perhaps this is not a synthesis, but we do not know who collected that info, and since we do not have a source, we cannot verify the details, without calling Mr. Quinn (which would definitely be a violation of privacy). Just my personal point of view, is that it can only be included in order to build a particular case, though I can't imagine what the case might be, so am willing to admit that it is perhaps not original research, but still it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability. Unless of course, we find a source, perhaps an interview that is in the public domain, that replicates the info.

TheRingess 02:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. You clearly say that calling Quinn is a violation of his privacy. But it's already a privacy violation for keeping this article when clearly Quinn does not want it. The man deserves his own page, but not on Wikipedia, where content can be changed around by other people. --GregoryKnapp 05:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gregory. Anyway, if you feel that the teacher bio had bias, why don't you remove the bias? I'm a college student. I know Mr. Quinn. Unfortunately, Wikipedia makes me look like a random person in the world.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ReRateOfMice (talk • contribs) .

Actually, we don't know really that Quinn doesn't want it. What we do know is that some editors are saying that he doesn't want it. There is a difference. He, himself, will have to contact the administrators of Wikipedia, and make his case with them. No one else can, for simple reasons that we cannot know who represents Quinn without him contacting the admins or vice versa.

ReRateOfMice, I'm sorry that you feel that way. My take on it, is that Wikipedia's guidelines are really meant to ensure that no one's opinions or edits are automatically considered more or less valid than any others. All material should be judged not on who added it, but whether or not it is truthful, verifable and neutral. But that is just my opinion, and is by my own admission no more or less valid than yours.

P.S. if an admin or other person in the know, were to supply the information that Mr. Quinn or his legal representatives had contacted them through Wikipedia requesting the article be deleted, I would gladly change my vote to delete.

TheRingess 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Can you walk me through on how Mr. Quinn may contact the administrators for this kind of issue? It would really be damaging to see Mr. Quinn take serious legal actions and it's better to let him contact the administrators first. --ReRateofMice 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to be honest, I have absolutely no idea. Though, obviously, that doesn't mean that there isn't a way. One thing to do might be to ask on your talk page, and stick the {{helpme}} template on there. That let's an admin know you are looking for help with this and someone in the know can point you in the right direction. There are probably precedents set, so some process probably exists somewhere. Believe me, I too take privacy issues seriously. When I find some time, I'll try to do some research also, and if I find anything, will let you know on your talk page. TheRingess 06:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for previously deleting the info about the Puget Sound award

I found the website and located the year of the award and changed the article to include the date of the award.

I'm also including the awards official website.

Again, my apologies for deleting that sentence in previous versions.

TheRingess 00:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Early material archived

I went ahead and archived earlier material from this page.

It's always a good idea to treat everyone with respect, but it's especially a good idea to do so on discussion pages like this, since they don't get deleted.

TheRingess 16:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Sources / Popularity Problem

The problem seems to be a lack of sources for the material added. But it's not Quinn's fault for the lack of sources. George Bush is the president of the United States, and for that reason and others, there are myriads of websites on George Bush. And therefore, his article can be well-written from the plentiful sources. But there seems to be very little sources about Quinn. Thus, and of my opinion only, this article should've never started in the first place. And if it had started, it should have remained a stub, not an attempted article like the current one. It will remain incomplete unless we find other sources. But that's the other problem. Someone can just quickly create a website about Quinn and use that as a secondary source. The website may seem very reliable, but in fact, it was created in very little time. So that's absurd. All Quinn has to do is make a website about himself with all the stuff he wants on Wikipedia and it can be added to Wikipedia with a link to his page. But it's absurd because some other individual can do the same thing.

George Bush is the president, and so is known by almost everyone in the United States. And because of that, his article receives a lot of different views/opinions, but those differing ideas all converge into facts in the end. I'm not saying that Quinn isn't popular, but his audience seems to be signficantly smaller. Therefore, it's a problem. A lot of people means majority vote will work better. Few people and majority voting does not work. I'll get back to this, but I wish to have my arguments supported or refuted or found probable. --TreyGreenawalt 16:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It might help for you to review Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources and see if that answers your questions. You might also take a look at the Wikipedia's guidelines about neutral points of view.

Truly, I am interested in your point of view, but am having trouble understanding where you are coming from, mostly because I cannot understand what type of material you think should not be included in the article, but might. Given that the material meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines about verifiability, credibility and neutrality. Without knowing that, it will be hard for me (perhaps just me) to discuss this with you. Please keep in mind, anything I say is just one person to another, I do not make policy here.

I'm just guessing, and this is the only thing I could think of, is that you are perhaps concerned that someone will add material that presents only 1 point of view?

TheRingess 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Message for all interest parties

See the deletion page. I'm tired of typing individual messages to you all. -DQ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.17.29 (talk • contribs) 19:24, February 26, 2006.

Many thanks for the revert, Travis! 67.160.17.29 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Though I may express myself very strongly at times, I want to say for the record, that none of my edits were intended to violate Mr. Quinn's right to privacy and in no way were meant as an attack. If anything I said came across as that, I publicly apologize. Though there is a rant on my talk page, it is still not intended as any kind of attack. TheRingess 00:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Now that it is unlocked, I made a few tiny changes, added a reference, and attempted to make the entry a little more chronological by removing the categories. Thought I was logged in at the school library, but I wasn't. Went back and signed the entry again. --MidnightTOKer 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Outsiders view and edits

I just made a couple of edits to the article. I'd expect David Quinn himself to restore the info before I can say boogaloo so I should explain it here too.

Info is supposed to be verifiable as per the section #Lack of Sources / Popularity Problem above. It's also supposed to be relevant. So I removed the resumé-part and anything that would be uninteresting for the casual reader. I encourage other editors (provided they approve of my edits) to make sure to make sure the info is not re-added to the article.

Actually, a person has not much saying in what is written in his Wikipedia-bio. He should restrain himself to the discussion page, like Jimbo Wales does for most of the time.

Fred-Chess 22:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

ABsurdity

I'd like to make an unnecessary but interesting comment. The original article was a stub. A "revolution" occured when a few people tried to change the article and wanted to categorized them. It resulted in an unecessary heated battle that went on for a long time. Finally, the article came back to stability, but was basically returned into a stub. What achievements? Very little. I don't recommend anyone trying to overthrow the article. The edits so far have been good. Just don't provoke another war. Okay, this is only my opinion... --ReRateofMice 06:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Being Clear

I've gotten a message from Ringess that I don't understand. If the community decided to keep the bio then my opinion as an editor is that the bio should be complete and correct. I'm not looking for a revolution correct bio. If FredChessPlayer (sockpuppet for ChessandCookies sound right?) wants the bio to be one or two lines then why have any bio at all? 71.197.148.37 06:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry are counterproductive. If you had looked at his/her user page you would see that they are not even a US citizen.TheRingess 14:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I suggested not to start a revolution, I do suprisingly agree that your version does contain all the necessary correct information there needs to be. Unfortunately, others will probably not agree with me and you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ReRateofMice (talk • contribs) .
Come on, is this essential:
"While at the University of Washington, Quinn co-founded Allrecipes.com and became a founding partner of the Pinpoint Venture Group, which invests in startup companies in the Pacific Northwest. Quinn also helped start ZC Entertainment in Los Angeles, California, which creates celebrity-based charity events for major corporations. "
For whom is this essential?
Fred-Chess 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I would think that him being the founder of multiple companies is of some interest, in showing the wide range of his activities. *Dan T.* 22:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Fred, sorry for saying you were a puppet without checking. I'm a twerp. That said I think that we need to decide if this is going to be a complete bio of the person or just an acting bio. What is meant by essential? If we stick to acting, my two-line bio is the best one. If we are going to delve deeper then we should include the important info about owning major companys.--71.197.148.37 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Theatre Camp Info

I've gone ahead and removed the following statement

Quinn was in BY STROUSE and MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG as well as the original OUR TIME CABARET in the summer of 1982 at Stagedoor Manor in Loch Sheldrake, New York, where he went for many summers.

For basically 2 reasons:

  1. It needs a reference and none was provided. Perhaps the Stagedoor Manor has a page that supports this? If it does an editor will need to include it in the references section.
  2. Basically it seems rather trivial for an encyclopedia article. Was there something particularly notable about those productions that warrants inclusion in an Encyclopedia. If this camp is notable enough, doesn't it deserve it's own article? The info could and should go there.

TheRingess 15:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


I saw that someone responded to my requests for references in this section. Though I went ahead and edited the material. I felt that the inclusion of other actors' names was simply not necessary. Plus any info about other actors belongs on their articles. Also info about the Theatre camp reunion, who attended and performed, belongs on the Theatre Camp page. The section as it was written seemed more appropriate for a fan magazine. It's good to see that the camp has its own article now, it seems notable enough.

TheRingess 14:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture Removed

I removed the picture because if anyone remembers the long revert/edit wars, it was primarily started because of the picture added recently. The IP address that added the picture looks like the Edmonds School District's IP Address. Please do not add the picture back in because I do not want another possible/likely revert war. If you are David Quinn who added the picture, then I would want you to do whatever you want to the article, but most users may disagree, as history tells us... --67.183.56.51 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This image belongs on the article, and there is no reaso to take it down. You shouldn't let college bullies force you into removing the picture from the site just because you fear they will start another revert war. I am fully aware we shouldn't poke the bear, but this doesn't count because we're merely doing what is correct. So, if you have a more valid reason for removing the article, please share. - 168.99.166.2 21:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I agree, I won't remove the picture. But now you have to deal with David Quinn himself. Look up his e-mail address in the directory listing. Although this is also a poor justification, it's worth finding out what he feels. And by the way, the way you use your language is so obvious... I know who you are. --67.183.56.51 00:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Boy, I thought this idiocy was over. If you are going to post a picture, why don't you post one that actually looks like Quinn. He hasn't looked like that in years. By the way, 168.99.166.2, you are just a sad, low-graded TOK student and I hope you get outed by this other poster.PicEditor
Just another 2 cents worth. Adding any picture to any biography of a living person is problematic at best. The picture is never going to be a completely accurate portrayal. Also, there is no need for veiled threats against a fellow editor. Please treat all of your fellow editors with respect. TheRingess 13:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Sharing correspondence from another editor over changes

Thanks for your willingness to contribute to this article. I felt it necessary to revert the material though, since you did not provide easily verified sources. Please keep in mind, that Wikipedia requires that any material added be easily verifiable by any average reader. For example, having to buy and watch a DVD to verify a piece of information in an article, probably does not count as easily verifiable. Also it's unreasonable to require a reader to travel to verify the information. Somewhere on the internet there might be information about this man's achievements and work history. Please search for that and use it as your source. For reference, you might wish to read Wikipedia's guidelines about reliable sources and verifiability.

TheRingess 00:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My responce

Your tone is really not appropriate. You are acting as if you where the final authority on wikipedia entrys. I completed an interview with the subject of this entry for a high school project. I am not aware that you have interviewed the subject. I have been to the subject's home, seen the awards and viewed the relevant material. You are acting as though the internet is the only source for knowledge claims, and that is a fallacy. Should I ask Mr Quinn to borrow his LiveAid dvd to make screen caps for you? Do I need to take pictures of him holding up an award? If I publish an interview with him on my home page, is that any more verifiable than me adding to his entry. I thank you for your willingness to edit, but I'm returning the page to the version I wrote. if you have a problem with it, take it to a higher level wiki editor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.150.79 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 11 November 2006.

Please sign your posts with ~~~~ whenever you post on wikipedia discussion pages, thanks. Sonic3KMaster(talk) 06:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you might wish to read Wikipedia's guidelines to verifiability. WP:CITE might help also. Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL also. TheRingess 07:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

New references

Added links from the official Peabody website, and a link to purchase the DVD. Just because a source isn't internet friendly doesn't mean it can't be used. if you have to check a book out of a library from a source provided by a wikipedia it is still a verifiable source. Removed the information on the other award until verifiable. happy now?

The link to the Peabody award was broken. Also, I seem to remember that the cast and crew of the show won the award, so that probably needs to be mentioned also. The link to the DVD does not meet WP:V. Wikipedia also discourages linking to commercial products. Somewhere, in a magazine, a newspaper article or a link, there must be a list of performers who participated in the Live Aid concert. That information should be used instead of a link to the DVD. Any average reader should be able to verify the information for themselves in pretty much the same way the author did. However, expecting a reader to purchase a DVD is unreasonable. Ditto for the work history. Somewhere there needs to be an article that describes his work experience and the awards won. Once again, you seem to have a lot of questions about what constitutes verifiability and reliable sources. These links should answer your questions: verifiability, citing sources, original research.TheRingess 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You are not the authority and even though 71.231.150.79 sounds like one of his students, I know the information provided by him or her is correct. We are respecting his privacy, but how are we going to improve the article by you constantly removing claims? Why don't you just let this article go and work on some other stub. And I'm not being offensive. It's a suggestion. Remove the sources and mark that sentence without a citation if you're so concerned with verifiability. --Canyonsknot3 01:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:OR. That should be enough to answer your questions.TheRingess 02:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the Peabody award information improves the article. But I don't think that the LiveAID material actually improves the article, to me it's somewhat promotional in tone. However it's not a hill to die on as a friend would say, but a link to Amazon doesn't count as a source. Hopefully there is a source somewhere that lists the performers. Unfortunately, the imdb link for Live AID in 1985 does not list him as a performer. Plus the information about Lord & Taylor and Ann Taylor stores doesn't really seem significant. I also doubt that a source can be provided, since those companies probably do not disclose employee information. Perhaps if somewhere in a published magazine article he talked about it, then it could be included. But I don't see why. Peace out.TheRingess 03:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The LiveAID material is not promotional, it is factual. I agree that the retail information is not relevant or verifiable, but the Live Aid is verifiable (I took out a copy from a local library today; he is clearly on screen and his image matches that on the UW site). Sorry that you seem to need an additional source that is easy for you to reference wherever you live, but that isn't the issue. The source exists, is verifiable, and can be easily checked. That is all that is required. As to Ryan White, I can't believe no one linked to his page. He is a hero.
I don't agree that the source is "easily verifiable" since we can't expect an average reader to buy the DVD. The guidelines seem to stipulate easily verifiable. It isn't me that requires it, it is the Wikipedia community. So I still feel that this material does not belong. The imdb database entry for the Live AID DVD does not list him as a performer, and this material adds nothing to the article.TheRingess 05:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The average reader may not be expected to do a lot of things, include subscribe to Lexus/Nexus. But if a claim can be verified in two forms -- book and DVD (and I have included the isbn number in my last edit -- that has to be good enough.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.150.79 (talk • contribs) .
Please read WP:V. Material added to articles must be easily verified. A photo does not count. How is an average reader, unfamiliar with the subject, supposed to know who the person in the photo is? As I've mentioned, the imdb entry for the Live AID concert does not list him as a performer. All questions of verifiability aside, is this material really relevant to the man's life? Was this moment on stage a defining moment? Was he instrumental in producing the Live AID concert? Why is this one sentence entry relevant? Is there a mention in this book of his relevance to the concert? Please remember to end your comments on this discussion page and others with ~~~~ ISBN numbers should be included in the article, not in the edit summary.TheRingess 21:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I did read it. You should bring another editor to the fold here. Just read your history of "ownership" to this page and don't understand your attitude. You aren't the only editor in the world.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.150.79 (talk • contribs) .
Thanks for reading it. I wanted you to understand that I was not merely expressing my own viewpoint, but trying to refer you to what the community has discussed and decided upon. I still question the verifiability of a picture in a book. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the truth of what you are saying, I'm just not sure that a picture in a book meets WP:V. I have skimmed the Wikipedia article about Live AID, and the imdb entry for Live AID and neither mentions him so I still question how significant the sentence is and why it belongs in an entry.TheRingess 23:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad now that you aren't sure -- because your "surety" before was vexing to me. I think this is a unique person with an amazingly diverse background. How many teachers can you name that have created web companies, appeared on TV, won major journalism awards, etc. I think the fact (and it is a fact; just because you can't verify it *on the web* doesn't make it less than that) that he sang in LiveAID is insane and has to be included! Why can't you see that?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.150.79 (talk • contribs) 02:47, November 13, 2006.

You are mischaracterizing my statement. Remember this, truth is a necessary condition for a statement to be included in an article. But truth by itself is not sufficient to guarantee that material will be included. I base this statement not on my personal opinion, but on the material included in the links that I have posted. Now I have gone to the most likely source for the list of performers at Live AID, namely the imdb entry for Live AID, and I did not see the subject's name on the list. This is an easy source, and seemed exhaustive. I also looked at Live AID and found no mention of the subject. In my opinion, a photo in a book , unless the people in the photo are identified by the publisher, does not serve as a good reliable source, for reasons that seem obvious to me. I went to amazon, and purchased a used copy of the book to see for myself if the publisher identifies all of the people in the photo. If the publisher does, then yes that could serve as a reliable source. I should get the book in a couple of days. Until then I am still sure that the source is not easily verifiable.TheRingess 03:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that sources have to be easily verifiable in WP:V? I only see one sentence: "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." The sentence only says that sources need to be in English so that readers can easily verify it. It never says that readers should be able to easily verify the article in the context of having to purchase a DVD. --BubbleGotAlpha 05:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And that's the debate going on here. Readers should be able to "easily" verify the material. I contend that requiring a user to purchase a DVD does not constitute easy verification since not all readers can afford to buy the DVD. Yet any reader with access to Wikipedia can look up the imdb entry for Live AID, and view the list of performers, which does not in this case include the subject of this article.

Let's not get into another edit war where users register a single use account to push a pov. That's counterproductive.

TheRingess 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

History of the Australian Capital Territory is a featured article and not all of its sources are electronic. "Sekavs, M. 1985. Aboriginal history in the 19th century. In ACT heritage seminars, Fitzgerald, A. ed., ACT Heritage Committee, Canberra ISBN 0-642-09721-6" is not an electronic source but it's still listed with its ISBN number as a citation. Easily verifiable? No, but it's still in the book. Even check out its Amazon page. And I agree with bubble that WP:V doesn't say anything about easy verifiability other than using the English language. --Canyonsknot3 05:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
But the issue is not whether or not the source is electronic, but really whether or not a photo in a book constitutes a reliable source. I am willing to accept that if the publishers of the book have identified the people in the photo in the book it can serve as a reference. I mentioned that I purchased the book to investigate the photo myself.TheRingess 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If a photo in a book does not constitute a reliable source, then what makes a sentence in a book constitute as a reliable source? Not to sound like a nincompoop, but a picture is worth a thousand words. By the way, I am not 71.231.150.79. And I won't revert the article again until you receive your book. Isn't it only 6 cents? --Canyonsknot3 05:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a very good question. And there's lots of material about that question. But the way I understand it, is that there has to be a reasonable assumption that the material was checked by the publishers, not by the readers. This is the reason why self published books and forums do not often constitute reliable sources. If a photo is published in a book by a reputable publisher, and the person(s) in the photo have been identified by the publisher then I believe we can use that photo as a reliable source. If the publisher has not identified the person(s) in the photo, then it probably isn't a good source. The above is simply based upon my reading of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding sources.TheRingess 05:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. I love getting emails from my students with mysterious messages like "check wiki." My kids are crazy! So, I gave an interview two weeks ago to a kid working on a project. Little did I know he would try to add to my profile...starting the revert madness all over again. Ringess, thanks for your concern and thanks for keeping an eye on my profile. You have been a thoughtful editor here, even though I still question why in the heck I have a profile at all. Since we have already established that I can't get rid of it, I thought I would mention that I *did* perform in the finale at Live Aid. My pic is in the book, but I don't think there's a caption, as I'm in with about 25 others. It's pretty clearly me, and the DVD has enough footage of the finale (a couple of shots of my big hair) to make it clear. My imdb profile is not extensive, in particular because my students like to add me to films, so the wise people at imdb try not to let that happen. I think a look at the photo in the book is enough, but it's OK with me if you leave out the reference. As I've said (repeatedly), now that I've learned more about this community, I have a great respect for the work of everyone here...but I still wish my life wasn't the subject of a wiki-bio at all.... MidnightTOKer 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Ringess, but Quinn has verified it, as have I. It is available in book and DVD form, and that's good enough for this editor. I note you reverted someone else's change regarding Edmonds-Woodway High School. Again, I have put the material back. If EWHS is good enough to have had a wiki entry for this long, then it's good enough to link Quinn to it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.150.79 (talk • contribs) .
I'll be brief this time. As far as I can tell, neither a contributor nor the subject themself, can serve as the sole source for material. If the book identifies the people in the photo, then the book is a good source. I removed the EWHS material, because of Mr. Quinn's questions about his privacy rights. I don't think that informing readers about where they can find him easily actually adds to the article. I have ordered the book, so if it does list him as one of the people in the photo, then I'll be glad to reinstate an altered version of the sentence.TheRingess 03:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll be brief as well. It appears that the other editors who have commented here agree with me. Neither the contributor nor the subject is the sole source. Again: The DVD image and the book are the source. Please stop muddling the issue. Your continual revision is not appropriate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.150.79 (talk • contribs) .
As I said before, if the book identifies him as one of the people in the photo then that would make a great source. However even Mr. Quinn has stated his doubts that the book identifies him. Reverting unsourced material is not considered inappropriate on Wikipedia. There are a number of links that will help clarify this issue for you. They are all listed above. Once again, please sign your comments with ~~~~. As I said, I ordered a copy of the book, it should come in a week or so, if the book identifies the people in the photo, then that's okay with me.TheRingess 03:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, my last comment wasn't saved properly and led to "blanking." Sorry about that. What I wrote was that you are the only editor who is disputing the sourcing here. Quinn says that he isn't sure the book identifies him, but he does say that the photo is of him. For this material to be here, it should be important (it is), verifiable (it is) and factual (it is). Please stop reverting just because it doesn't mean your standard, which appears to be higher than wikis.71.231.150.79 05:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And I never said it was a duet, that's your term. I merely said that Quinn performed with them on stage at the finale. 71.231.150.79 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
My standards are not higher than wikipedia's. I have consistently provided links to show any interested editors that I am using rules agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. These links include but are not limited to WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:SOURCE. I do not think it is against Wikipedia guidelines to request that a source be provided (in the article, not the edit summary) that identifies Mr. Quinn as having been on the stage and performed with both Tina Turner and Mick Jagger as the material claims; as this seems to be a fairly significant claim. I also do not think that it is against Wikipedia's guidelines to require that the source be someone other than Mr. Quinn or the contributing editor. A photograph by itself does not constitute a source. If the book identifies the people pictured in the photo, then it can be used as a source. I personally believe that all of that is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.TheRingess 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I think it is now time for us to request that some third parties weigh in on the current issue.TheRingess 05:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a new entry on the request for comment page under biographies.TheRingess 05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but the "Note: This page is 50 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage" is bugging me. Should we archive this page? I'm sure the dispute is "over." --Canyonsknot3 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

it's fine as it is, but if anyone wants to manually archive it they're welcome to do so. Some articles have much larger discussion pages, but they are also broader topics generally. There's an archive bot that will automatically archive the older discussions eventually, but I'm not sure how that works... Sonic3KMaster(talk) 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually there are several requests out to respond in the requests for comments section below. It seems that the usual policy on discussions is to allow them to run for a week or so. In about 3 or 4 days I'll archive this talk page. TheRingess 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments

The ongoing rev between myself and another editor is over the appropriate sourcing of the following line: "In addition to his commercials and television appearances, Quinn also performed in the original LIVE AID concert in Philadelphia, singing with Mick Jagger and Tina Turner in the show's finale."

I claim that the DVD, the book, and the subsequent verification by Quinn himself (here) are all enough. The other editor says that Quinn's name must be in the credits of the book or the concert to be verifiable.

Which standard is enough? When is enough proof present for a sentence to stay in? 71.231.150.79 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a fair and accurate assessment. It's simply my contention that unless the author of the book identified the people in the photo then Wikipedia becomes the primary source for that material. I have ordered the book and if the author did list the people in the photo, then I believe that we can include the book as a reference in the article. TheRingess 05:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. First, an offline source is entirely acceptable, even if it's not available online-no one's "expecting the reader to buy the DVD", especially if it's likely available at public libraries. Therefore, I disagree that a book, DVD, or other offline source would be unacceptable (and so does WP:RS). However, in this case, if Quinn did not appear in the credits, there are two problems. First-information must be easily verifiable to all readers. I have not the first clue what Quinn looks like, nor, I suspect, would many readers. Therefore, a picture (even if he does actually appear) is not a suitable verification method, unless his name appears as a person pictured (or, on a DVD, in the credits of the film). Secondly, if he was not mentioned in the credits, it's likely his appearance was not notable, even if it was verifiable, and does not belong regardless. Seraphimblade 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I realize that I may have sounded like I believed an offline source was not acceptable. But I never meant to imply that.TheRingess 07:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My copy of the book arrived today. I looked on pg. 190. It displays a photo that takes up to full pages. It shows someone who looks like Lionel Ritchie holding a microphone. It also shows a bunch of kids wearing t-shirts with a "Children to Children" logo. The book does not identify anyone in the picture. TheRingess 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion has been open for more than a week, so I think we can close it. I think that we can safely conclude that a picture in a book with no caption does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for sources. So I am removing the sentence. I also removed some other statements that had no source. TheRingess 17:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/Talk%7EDavid_Quinn_%28actor%29_archive2_6ee8.html"