Talk:William Harvey Lillard

Initial cleanup

I have taken a quick tour through the article and made several copy edits. It still needs work but shows potential. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Saw it- nice! Will look for other refs as soon as I got time. --Jargon ^๏̯͡๏) 00:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability template

I disagree. As Wikipedia:Notability says: On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.

Many of the sources on this article are used on D.D. Palmer and B.J. Palmer as well, which, in my opinion, make it as reliable as them. I do agree, though, that more sources would be needed- mainly because of the "controversy" about this topic. --Jargon ^๏̯͡๏) 00:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is not notable. See WP:BASIC. QuackGuru (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability;

:) --Jargon ^๏̯͡๏) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is borderline notable. If it was AFDed it might be kept. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive text

Repetitive text in the lead is called a summary. See WP:LEAD. QuackGuru (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Biography

Harvey Lillard was an African American[...]

Maybe it should be removed from the bio and moved to the lead, then? --Jargon ^๏̯͡๏) 17:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It should stay in the bio and the article should be summarised in the lead. See WP:LEAD. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Death

We need to stick to reliable sources (RS). The personal anecdotes of individuals on their own websites isn't anything close to what we consider a reliable source here. I'm not saying the information isn't true, but by Wikipedia standards it's not from a RS. If this had been mentioned in a newspaper we could mention it, but it's only sourced to private clinic websites. The Bruce Lee mention is also off-topic.-- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I apologize for my earlier entries, as I bit off more than I could chew with my inexperience. However, I looked at the article the information was taken from and find the source extremely reliable due to the photos of the events as they happened. I wish more reliable sources had such great photo journals. While I will not argue about your opinion it being off topic, it might come of much interest to other chiropractors and chiropractic historians due to the name recognition and popularity of that site. I appreciate your understanding while I try to get the hang of it.-- NorCalGirl78 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your enthusiasm for this source. The information is presented nicely and illustrated. It is rare, but not an impossibility, that such a source can be used. We don't usually use private websites of this nature, especially when it's commercial site and there is no outside confirmation in independent sources. (If there is, then we should use them. Please try to find them!) Even the way the stone was originally found sounds rather suspicious. How did they even know to dig out a rectangular piece of sod that was just the right size? Very odd, but I think we're going to have to bring this up on our WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They can decide whether to allow these sources or not. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Private.2C_commercial_sources.3F -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I will definitely research it further. I completely understand not using commercial sources, however if it is the only source to a relevant piece of historical information, it makes sense that it should be included. Is it against the rules to contact the person who wrote the piece for clarification?-- NorCalGirl78 (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NorCalGirl, you mentioned the edits as 'historically valid' by which I think you mean both true and relevant. But our policies only concern ourselves with verifiability (can we look it up), relevance (is it significant for the article), and reliability (can we trust the source). While your edits are verifiable and relevant, if we can't trust the source we can't take the apparent truth of the information as valid. This is not to say the source is poor or your intentions are poor, or really anything at all, except that if we didn't do it this way, we wouldn't be able to tell which information was good and which information was not. QueenAnne Chiro and Handly clinic, though likely operated by honest, upstanding people, cannot be used because they are self-published sources and by individuals who have not otherwise established their reliability in other reliable published sources.

Moreover, if the information you reported indeed happened, then it's likely that it was reported on by a reliable source such as a published book or newspaper article. Specifically, if it's the only source that mentions the information, we can't use it, because there's no way to judge its reliability. Unforunately, if we can't find corroboration for it, we'll have to leave it out until that happens. This won't mean that it's false, just that we couldn't find a reliable source for it by Wikipedia's policies. Ocaasi (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll attempt to find another source. With the photos being so good, and the factual information regarding the misspelling of the name on the temporary tombstone, as well as the photos of the chiropractors who replaced the headstone with a permanent marker, does it make it a valid source for those points?-- NorCalGirl78 (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly solicit others' opinions here, but I'd have to say that it doesn't matter how useful the information in an un-reliable source is. That just makes it more of a bummer, not more of a reason. (note: unreliable and reliable are always about Wiki policy standards, not personal or professional trustworthiness). It sounds like an amazing story, but just because it's not on Wikipedia doesn't mean it didn't happen, that people can't read about it elsewhere, or that we won't find a source for it later. Ocaasi (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Our policies about sourcing would forbid use of the scanned letters and the images, since such things can and have been faked here. We've seen some elaborate hoaxes included here, causing a scandal. Hence we can only link to secondary sources with good reputations for factchecking, etc.. If this really happened as described, and I wouldn't be surprised if it had, then it would likely be documented in some other sources, as mentioned by Ocaasi. If not, these chiropractors have failed to do what chiropractors do better than literally ANYONE else - marketing and self-promotion. Being graduates of Life U., I suspect they haven't flunked ChiroMarketing 101 ("advertise, advertise, advertise"), and have therefore reported this story to newspapers, likely the local ones which will feature links and mention of their clinics with the story. If they haven't, then Sid Williams would have done it. He's a master salesman. So keep searching. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I received an email back a few minutes ago explaining a little more about how the grave was found. The caretaker of the cemetery provided them an original map, and they walked to the area and stuck a tire iron into the ground where it was supposed to be and dug it out that way. He said he wrote the article as a tribute to his mothers contribution to chiropractic history, since she passed away a few years ago. I've looked through many sources, and haven't come up with any secondary sources yet. The only issue I seem to be having is that just because it comes from a book or news article that has published does not necessarily mean that it is true either. This is a separate issue as it has more to do with how factual information is being published and found versus more traditional ways.-- NorCalGirl78 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking too and can't find anything but mirrors of Wikipedia or copies of the original article. I don't find any independent confirmation. Hmmm..... We'll have to get advice from the noticeboard. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This happens to almost all new editors, and reading through WP:VERIFIABILITY should be helpful. Truth, believe it or not, is insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. It simply has to be confirm-ably published in reliable sources. For that matter, you're absolutely right that just because something is published does not mean that it's true. But until a reliable source disputes it, we [almost always] use it. We go with the best we have, provided it meets a minimum threshold of relevance and reliability. This still doesn't.

You raised interesting points about modes of publishing, book vs. traditional, and I'd also mention blog vs. news. Wikipedia acknowledges these differences and says the following--books are peer reviewed and fact-checked by a variety of organizations whose livelihood depends on their reputation for truth; individuals are not. Blogs for that matter, on the very opposite end of traditional, are considered to be self-published sources and generally not reliable unless part of a fact-checked wing of a news organization, or recognized by other reliable secondary sources as a reliable place to go for information. What you described as traditional information gathering is a wonderful thing, but it's not what encyclopedia editors are licensed to do, and first and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What you did is original research, a phenomenal thing for students, journalists, writers, and humans, but actually prohibited on Wiki. You might want to check out Wikinews, which has some room for individuals to conduct and publish original interviews. That wouldn't still make it usable here, but it might satisfy your desire that someone recognize that this stuff happened and was important. Ocaasi (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I will definitely check out Wikinews, at the very least for fun. I read through the RS material and came upon the self-published section and read this: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." While the information about Harvey Lillard may not be of interest to the majority of the world, it would seem to be of great interest to chiropractors. Since chiropractic history is a rather niche subject, and from what I have read about Harvey Lillard, there was very little known about his whereabouts following the introduction of the chiropractic profession. While popular information is likely to be published in other sources, that cannot be in every case when dealing with niche subjects. It is my opinion that the information provided by the article in question provides significant, quality information regarding the history of Mr. Lillard. As stated in the requirements of RS's and self-published sources, this type of source should not be used for a living person, which implies that one that certain information about historically significant deceased individuals may only have self published articles as the only reliable sources. I would also like to include that the chiropractor who wrote the article could be considered an expert in his field, could he not? As a licensed doctor, even though not an M.D., he could be considered an expert in his field based on his knowledge shown. This combined with the photos provided give an extremely compelling case that the information provided is factual. It is also my opinion that the information is not self serving as it simply fills in blanks in the missing time line of an extremely important person in the history of the profession. I realize this is a unique circumstance, but after reading the rules regarding reliable sources, I can see where this information is complete valid in this instance.-- NorCalGirl78 (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you copy your comment to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Private.2C_commercial_sources.3F, exactly as you have written it here. We need more input from that source to help us. Your comment might get more responses. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right that this is a niche subject and it makes sense that the information could be true, locally important, and have no reliable sources which covered it. That is a part of the web of knowledge that Wikipedia has chosen to exclude, partly for practical reasons, and partly for the deeper conviction that without a source we can count on, we don't get to make our own determinations about its truth. In addition to Wikinews, you might try some chiropractic news sources. I found Chiropractic Wellness and Fitness and Dynamic Chiropractic. I don't know why they wouldn't be interested in this story, and their community of readers is more targeted at the audience that would care.

I know it's frustrating that Wikipedia is the place and the information is right there and all you need to do to make it globally available forever is to connect the dots. But not yet... Per your policy queries, this is significant and quality information, but it is not 'reliable'; self-published sources should never be used for living persons, but they 'still' aren't usable for dead people; experts are not reliable on the basis of their own knowledge but because other reliable sources have described (or used) them as experts; the importance of the subject relative to Chiropractic is not how we determine notability only its importance relative to reliable sources; there's no reason to think that the photos are fake or the story is fake, but we still require 'any' reliable source to confirm it; and we make exceptions if ignoring a rule would help improve the encyclopedia, but generally adding interesting information which can't be reliably sourced is not considered such a case.

I'm out of ideas on this one, except that you call up the newspaper in the town where Lillard died, put them in touch with Queen Anne Chiro, wait until their great article is published and then bring it back here. That's way out of the scope of editing, but it seems like the only way you could keep going on this. Oh, you can also upload the photographs to WP:COMMONS, provided you have the permission of the photographers (or they are uncopyrighted). That still doesn't mean we can use them in the article, but it's a start. Maybe poke around other articles and see if there is something else you could update. You'll either find other interests or other situations where the same problem exists; either situation might lead to different conclusions about this one. Ocaasi (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't just about sourcing, it's about OR. We don't reproduce other people's OR here unless it has been commented on in sources totally unrelated to themselves. Right now we also have the added problem that the link is to a commercial clinic website. We can reduce the problem a small amount by using a link to a mirror of that story on a noncommercial website. I believe there were several of them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought half of the problem with OR was the source. Queen Anne is an SPS, an 'unreliable' primary source. NorCalGirl's research with them was original, which makes her an 'unreliable' primary source. I'm not sure I see the OR/RS distinction here; I thought they were involve OR and sources we can't use. Ocaasi (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! That's the "elephant" I refer to below. I haven't dropped that concern, but since there is no BLP issue here, I'm being patient and waiting for more input and a consensus. I'm hoping that more comments will happen on the RS noticeboard. Please comment there. I want a strong consensus, not just a one against two or three situation. I'd like more voices saying we can't use that source or information if it isn't from an independent RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a series of edits. If you go through them individually, I think you will see a number of improvements. The question remaining (besides the OR and sourcing "elephant in the room"...) is whether to mention Bruce and Brandon Lee. They have nothing to do with Lillard or chiropractic. (I have used the reference in their articles now.) I see no point to including their mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nice work on these.Ocaasi (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still working to improve the article, well-knowing that this version of that section is the only one so far that only uses RS. We may end up with something like that. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

RS/OR compromise with in-line attribution?

I'm always hearing about how inline attribution 'dilutes' and 'weakens' claims by mentioning the source (as if it wasn't an undisputed fact). Well, what if we use that to our advantage here, and instead of saying that the misspelled tombstone was found by the Gibson and Handly docs, we write that Dr. Gibson reported that he found the tombstone and that it was misspelled. By describing the report rather than the history itself, don't we give ourselves some RS wiggle room (or is that cheating)? Ocaasi (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy QG's argument about inline attribution. "When in doubt, attribute" is my position most of the time. It often strengthens the presentation, either by making it clear that an authority is quoted, or that an idiot is quoted. Either way we win.

As to the rest of your comment, it's tempting but is still cheating. We can't even mention the misspelling, the discovery, or the Gibsons and Handlys without a RS. Too bad, because it's a good story. I hope that a RS will pick up this story. Maybe Dynamic Chiropractic would do it. It's a RS for certain types of chiropractic information, but a lousy one for MEDRS related stuff since it also parrots chiropractic nonsense and marketing. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming more from a humanities and social science background than a straight science background, I also tend towards attribution. Over in soft-science land, we like knowing where an idea came from. And attribution can also strengthen a claim, if you value the source highly. When someone states a claim as if it were fact, I immediately want to know 'says who, on what basis, etc.' If you have opinions on the inline attribution matter, I have a feeling that NPOV is going to need a little clarification and tweaking to bolster guidance there. I haven't done it yet, but have been keeping an eye on different discussions to see if it comes up. Curious if you have had any discussions with RexxS about it...he prefers the straight limited-attribution model. On the issue, I suppose giving the encyclopedia reader a heads up that, hey, this might not be true, is probably a sign it shouldn't be in there to begin with. It's frustrating since for so many articles, even this kind of half-non-source would be an improvement. But I think I get it. Ocaasi (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)