Talk:Clifford Vaughs

Requested move to Clifford Vaughs

I requested an uncontroversial move to Clifford Vaughs at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, per Vintagent and Spider Monkey; it's just a messed up copy-paste move fix. No need to comment unless you wish to object. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Article and talk page tagging

I have tagged both the article and talk page appropriately due to the originating editor/main contributor also being the author of the main reference sources. The article shows primary sources in the banner as there appears to be 'no discussion in secondary sources' as is usual in a BLP article, therefore I regard the works and references by Vintagent as Primary.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Paul D'Orleans's (User:Vintagent) book The Chopper is not a primary source. It was not original material written close to the events described, and was not written by a participant. The book is exactly the kind of secondary source that we prefer. I don't know of any sources that dispute the book, and I have seen many other published sources that verify that it is accurate. It's solid scholarship by a known expert on a topic that was poorly covered in the past.

I don't see any problem with Vintagent citing his book here. The book is an excellent secondary source, and seems within the guidelines of WP:SELFCITE. The Vintagent blog is a primary source in so far as it describs how Vaughs met with the author for research for the book, but those events are not in this article. The blog citation is used for facts about the film Easy Rider. Since those same facts are in the book The Chopper, there's no need to also cite the blog here. The blog has been discussed as a reliable source more than once in the past, and generally it is considered OK to cite it for facts about motorcycle history, since it's written by a recognized expert.

This article could be improved with citations from other sources, which would corroborate the information in The Chopper, but I don't expect the actual contents of this article to change much by adding more footnotes from other sources. It is essentially accurate and there aren't any BLP issues that would require revision, such as a partisan tone or material that is likely to be challenged. There are none of the issues covered by WP:BLPPRIMARY that need correction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Rocknrollmancer made this edit over at the talk page of a new editor, which is unhelpful. It is great to demonstrate that, as I had said over there, there are multiple points of view on on how to interpret policy. I don't want a new editor to think I dictate policy; I want them to think that if they have a discussion in the appropriate venue they are going to find multiple ways of seeing things.

The problem I have is going way beyond that to start arguing the details of Clifford Vaughs there instead of here. The accusation that I don't treat these questions equitably is unfair. Did I revert anything Rocknrollmancer did here on Clifford Vaughs? No. I left the maintenance tags in place, only commenting that I don't agree that d'Orleans's Choppers book is a primary source. That's not what primary means. I also did not revert the citations of self-published-sources on Softail. I formatted the citation, and I added {{Better source}} to a citation of a personal web page, not a published book by a real publishing house. I then expressed my opinion as to why.

The thing I said I wasn't so sure about was the later addition of descriptions of Vaughs's death, which are not in the published book but only on The Vintagent blog, and which are essentially the same as the SPS citations on Softail. Both are questionable, both have been tagged. None have been reverted. Both are under discussion. What is the problem?

I have no idea what Rocknrollmancer is asking me to do now.

As far as the reliability of User:Vintagent's publications, Rocknrollmancer's opinion that they are "a joke" and "completely unsubstantiated, historically" is merely his opinion. The previous Motorcycling Project consensus, that included User:Brianhe, that the Vintagent was reliable was based on credibility lent to him by being a motorcycling consultant at Bonhams, columnist for Cycle World and BikeExif, cited by IJMS, NPR curator, and published by Die Gestalten Verlag.[23][24] The reasoning was the same as that used to say that we could cite Kevin Ash's blog on motorcycles. Rocknrollmancer has not cited any experts that criticize d'Orleans or question his credibility.

It would be helpful to discuss what Rocknrollmancer would like see changed at Softail at Talk:Softail, and what he would like to see changed on Clifford Vaughs right here, and to present any evidence that Paul d'Orleans is not credible at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Mixing up topics form one venue to another isn't helpful and doesn't lead to a resolution. There are now two LA Times articles cited which verify much of what the Vintagent cited, so that kind of makes it moot. We have a third party to cite so let's do that and call it fixed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clifford Vaughs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160705140937/http://www.aimag.com/unsung-easy-rider-cliff-vaughs-passes-away/ to http://www.aimag.com/unsung-easy-rider-cliff-vaughs-passes-away/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)