Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 October 24

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

October 24

Dan Upperco: Article Improvement

Hi - I have made improvements to an existing article "Dan Upperco" which is a biography. Can someone please suggest further improvements? Also, once more improvements are made how do I get rid of the box in the beginning of the article stating that different improvements need to be made? thx! SusanSsnowball (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The most immediate problem to me seems to be the awkward prose. Most sentences don't have a subject (except the first one, which instead lacked a verb), and the "college career" section doesn't even pretend to be prose. The references could also still be improved - several of them are primary sources such as his employer's website, which incidentally doesn't mention Upperco at all, or his LinkedIn profile. Conversely, entire sections cite no sources whatsoever.

When you've resolved the issues mentioned in the box, you can remove the box as well. For now I've removed the "external links" and "layout" issues; those seem to have been fixed. I left the "better sources" message for the reasons outlined above.

Since the article has already been accepted, this is technically the wrong help desk. You may receive more feedback at the general help desk, or maybe from the people at some relevant WikiProject such as WikiProject Biography or WikiProject National Football League. Huon (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Help on creating an Academic Bio

RE: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jon Mills

Greetings. I would appreciate some help on creating an article Bio entry. Is this being rejected based on my construction of my own Bio (in other words, is a self-constructed Bio not acceptible)?

You are asking for improvements in terms of verifiable referencing, so do you want me to list all the secondary sources where my work is cited or covered (which conservatively is hundreds), such as talk shows, radio, scholary reviews?

I thought the simpler the better, so do you want a more elaborate profile where I list all my works (I list the main ones), how they have been influencial on the field, the awards I received, etc.?

Thank you for your guidance, JonDr. Jon K. Mills (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

While writing an autobiography is not strictly forbidden, it's strongly discouraged because of the obvious conflict of interest. The draft shows some of these problems when it's vague but laudatory: "Honored for his scholarship" sounds good, but tells the reader very little. That should read something like: "In 2011 Mills received a Gradiva Award for his book, Origins: On the Genesis of Psychic Reality." But the main problem is that the draft doesn't establish the subject's notability. For that, we require significant coverage in reliable sorces that are independent of the subject (see also WP:PROF for more specific notability criteria). Basically, the draft shouldn't cite your works, but what others have written about you. Only the APA's book review is a good source, all others either aren't independent or do little more than mention your name. Unfortunately I didn't find where that review actually calls your work the first sustained philosophical critique of contemporary psychoanalysis, making that claim unverifiable. In fact that review at times was rather critical of your work (even calling it "frustratingly misguided"), and that criticism somehow didn't find its way into your draft. Conflict of interest, as I said. Anyway, notability requires more than just one source that deals with the subject in some detail. Newspaper articles, for example about the Gradiva award, or scholarly reviews of your work which could serve as a basis for the "Philosophy of the Unconscious" section would do much to resolve this problem - as long as the article's text is then indeed based on what the reliable sources say. Facts that cannot be verified from secondary sources probably aren't important enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia and should be removed. Huon (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chesca Manlusoc

sdefesdgesgweg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.64.75 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That page is empty. What do you need help with? Huon (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mick Murphy

Hello,

I recently wrote an article on Mick Murphy an cyclist in Ireland and cited two newspapers in Ireland one National -Irish Examiner and the other regional - The Kerryman newspaper but was told my sources was not good enough. What do you require citing wise? Joesoap25 (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much the sources (newspaper articles are very good sources) but the draft's tone and the lack of inline citations and footnotes. We need the latter to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. For example, I don't think either compares Murphy to Roche and Mangan, which means that claim is unsourced and should be removed. Regarding the tone, phrases such as "made headlines again" and "is famous in Irish cycling circles" sound good but convey little information. Murphy is lavishly praised in the sources, but we should attribute such praise to its source: Not "Murphy is considered one of the best racers ever to compete [...]", but "The Kerryman called Murphy 'one of Ireland's most revered cyclists.'" As an aside, the draft probably should mention some additional details such as Murphy's various jobs. Huon (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Empower: Access to Medicine

Afternoon,

Just wanting to get some clarity on where my referencing has fallen down on this article. Is it the footnoting or referencing throughout?

Kind Regards,

James Hargrave James Hargrave (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

While proper footnotes would make the article look nicer, the problem is with the references themselves. They are all primary sources, the organization's own website and those of other involved parties. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage. We need significant coverage in such sources, both to establish the subject's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. For example, how can I verify that the campaign is involved with Geoffrey Clifton-Brown? Huon (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Covering The Spread Podcast

I'm not clear on what else I can use to provide "reliable sources". The article is about a weekly podcast. I provided the links to the podcast itself, as well as the social media streams of the authors. Would an e-mail from the authors themselves qualify as a reliable source?

Thank You. Maskedgk (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)MaskedGK

Unfortunately e-mails from the authors are not considered reliable sources. What we need are sources like newspaper articles that are independent of the podcast and its authors, that are subject to editorial oversight and known for fact-checking and accuracy. Significant coverage in such sources is required to establish the podcast's notability. Huon (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Timothy Sweet

Seeing when the new article of Senator candidate "TIMOTHY SWEET" when be available for Public viewing. Thank you. TS TimothyJamesSweet (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The article has been submitted review, but there's quite a backlog; it may take a week or so until a reviewer takes a look. However, the draft currently doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. We need significant coverage in such sources, both to establish the subject's notability (see also WP:POLITICIAN for more specific criteria; candidates for office are explicitly not cosidered inherently notable) and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. If no such sources can be found, we cannot accept the submission.

If you are Timothy Sweet, as your username suggests, you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest: Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Second Stage Theatre Awards and Mentions

Hi, I created two articles for Second Stage Theatre - one with awards and mentions and one for list of productions [see also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Second_Stage_Theatre_(Productions)]. The current listing of these items on the Second Stage main page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Stage_Theatre) was largely unhelpful and incomplete. Both articles I worked on were marked for deletion.

I read the info about non-partiality and autobiographical info, etc. These pages are in no way promotional, simply informational. They were intended to function like actors' and actress' pages which list the movies they have been in and/or awards they have won. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Louis-Dreyfus

How can I improve these articles so they won't be deleted? Should I simply add more references to the exact award links at the bottom? Additionally, these would not be their own pages, just sub-pages of the the main Second Stage Theatre article. I wanted the reader to be able to click under the section on the main page to a "see further info" link to these articles.

I'm very new to Wikipedia. Any specific help is appreciated. Best, AnnaSecond Stage Theatre (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think these drafts can be salvaged. Yes, secondary sources that explicitly confirm that, say, David Cale was playwright and director of The Redthroats, performed in the 1986-87 season, would definitely be necessary. But I just checked the most famous theatres and opera houses I could think of, including the Comédie-Française, La Scala and the Bayreuth Festspielhaus, and the closest to such a list they have is Category:La Scala world premieres. So apparently we usually don't list productions or awards by theatre. There seems to be an almost-precedent for film companies; we do have a list of Warner Bros. films which also details the Academy Award winners and nominees (as long as the film itself was nominated; actors and "technical" Oscars apparently don't count). But even then a major difference remains: Films usually have but one film company (unless it's a co-production, but even then the number is small and unchangeable), whereas plays may be performed in many theatres. Thus, listing plays by venue doesn't really make much sense. The relevant guideline is WP:NOTDIR. It says: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic" - but these plays aren't famous for being associated with the Second Stage Theatre, and there's no evidence that the topic of "awards won by the Second Stage Theatre" is notable by itself - as one reviewer commented, even the theatre article itself is in pretty bad shape and could use some better, independent sources to clearly establish the theatre's notability. Huon (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HipHossip.com

How do I upload a logo? Wikicohen (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That logo is probably copyrighted. If so, you can upload it to Wikipedia via the File Upload Wizard; if your account is not yet autoconfirmed, you can request an upload at WP:Files for upload. However, Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires non-free images to be used in at least one article, a draft is not enough. Thus you shouldn't upload it until the draft has been accepted.

If the logo comes with a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Huon (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Johnson journalist

Hello. I am RollingWagon. I have made an entry for Christopher Johnson (author, journalist, musician) After waiting several days for review, Kelly Marie 0812 rejected it, saying it seems to be a test article for the sandbox. In fact, the article is not a test article. It is intended for entry on wikipedia.org. It has 53 references, and citations for every point, in accordance with Wikipedia policies. The person is notable. For example, wikipedia uses several dozens of his photos of famous athletes. For some reason, the article had a duplicate section at the bottom. I have just now removed the duplicated section. Is the article now in proper form? Or is there another reason why Kelly Marie rejected it? If so, how can the entry be re-edited? Thank you. Rollingwagon (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingwagon (talk • contribs) 06:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the reviewer called that a test edit; it rather obviously isn't one. However, the references are rather problematic. Many of them are primary sources such as Amazon selling Johnson's book, his sister's website (which incidentally doesn't say Kathy Johnson is Christopher's sister) or articles written by Johnson, many others are not reliable because they're user-submitted content, such as globalitemagazine, a glorified blog, or Wikipedia itself. Yet others, such as the Time article, are reliable secondary sources, but don't even mention Johnson. In order to be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, Johnson must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - it's not enough that his work is widely used, others must have written about him. Furthermore, Wikipedia content must be verifiable from such reliable sources; if the draft says Johnson worked with person X, the source should not just be a short biography of X, but should confirm that Johnson indeed worked with X.

On a more technical note, while you do use inline citations and footnotes, you don't use Wikipedia's preferred style; see Help:Footnotes and WP:Referencing for beginners. I'll go through the draft and fix its current refereces (removing the obviously useless ones in the process), but it would be much easier if you used <ref></ref> tags in the future. Unlike the problems with notability and verifiability, this is not a reason not to accept your draft; so if you find Wikipedia's referencing style too complicated you can just carry on as before and leave that work to others. Huon (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, please kindly fix the technical matters in the draft, which will be a good learning experience for a newcomer. In regards to your point about "rather problematic" references. For example, a Google search for "Christopher Johnson journalist Japan" finds articles about him (not by him) in The Economist, Youtube, BoingBoing, Hoofin, JapanProbe, Debito, Tepido, Quora, GaijinPot, ENENews, Fukushima Diary, Japologism, Groups.Google.com, Inventorspot, Taiji Action Group, Hikosaemon, JapanGlimpsed, and many others. None of these sites (including world famous sites) are associated with Mr. Johnson, or employing Mr. Johnson. As for the point about a "glorified blog", it has more than 125,000 views, and hundreds of articles. Wikipedia.org cites this blog in several photos used by Wikipedia.org. Why would Wikipedia.org use several dozen of Mr. Johnson's photos if Mr. Johnson is not a notable photographer and journalist? In fact, some of these photos are the very first to appear on Google searches for Lionel Messi, Rafael Nadal and others. Thanks again. Rollingwagon (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingwagon (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

YouTube and Google Groups are user-submitted content and thus usually not reliable. The Economist piece is not an article but an opinion piece, which is usually considered reliable only for the opinion of the author. In general, we want sources that are subject to editorial oversight and known for fact-checking and accuracy. The "glorified blog" may have a large readership, but it's still self-published; it doesn't even provide any information on authorship. That Wikipedia uses Johnson's photos only means that he's good at his job, it doesn't mean he's notable. Now I don't really doubt he indeed is notable, but right now the draft heavily relies on dubious sources and makes it rather difficult to ascertain that Johnson has received coverage in reliable secondary sources - searching for them among the 53 references is something like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. Huon (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Regarding your claim about "dubious sources", have you been able to check each of the 53 references? The article in The Economist, by staff reporter Kenneth Cukier, edited by Tom Standage, is not an opinion piece. It's a feature news story, like thousands of others in The Economist, subject to editorial oversight and fact-checking, as you mentioned. In fact, the article generated more than 700 comments, thus further evidence that Johnson is notable. The Economist is one of the most reliable sources in the world. If The Economist is not a reliable source, in the eyes of Wikipedia editors, then what is? How about the BoingBoing article, by a well-known author, subject to editorial oversight. It received hundreds of comments about a notable person. Is that a dubious source? The links at Youtube and Google Groups, which you mentioned, had no previous association to Johnson. What about the dozens of other sites which have done articles about Johnson (not by him)? These articles generated several thousands of comments about a notable person. The "glorified blog" you mentioned contains articles published in some of the most respected media in the world, with links to prove it. Thus it can be considered a reliable source of information. The blog contains hundreds of photos. Is that not reliable? A Google search finds more than 10 pages of articles written about Johnson (not by him). How does this compare to other "notable persons" on Wikipedia? Is their a certain threshold? For example, does there have to 50 pages on Google searches about a person to be notable? Dozens of articles in The Economist, TIME, and others? As for the point about Wikipedia.org using Johnson's photos, has Wikipedia paid for that work, or sought permission? What is the licensing agreement? Are those decisions made by groups of editors, or can anybody use Johnson's photos for their pages? You also mention about 53 references and the "needle in the haystack" analogy. Wikipedia.org policy says to cite references. I thus found 53 references to support the points in the article. Is it better to use only a few references? I thought it was better to cite every point. Please clarify Wikipedia policy on these matters. I would also like to learn more about the technical matters you mentioned. The process in confusing. I'm trylng to master this process for future submissions. Thanks again for your assistance to a newcomer. Rollingwagon (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Another point I would like to make. I believe this is supposed to be a "Help Desk", not a place for making unfounded claims and accusations against a newcomer. Huon has rewritten my detailed entry, and claimed in a note at the top: "In fact, I don't think there's a single truly reliable source among the bunch that's not written by Johnson himself and covers him in appreciable detail. Huon (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)" This is a rather strong and damaging claim for someone who is supposed to be helping a newcomer on the Help Desk. In other words, Huon is claiming that articles about Johnson by the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, The Economist, Reuters, BoingBoing, Bangkok Books, Amazon.com, and many others (noted on at least 10 pages of Google search results for "Christopher Johnson Japan journalist) are not "truly reliable sources." In fact, Huon has no proof that any of the points in the entry, originally backed by 53 references, are false and factually incorrect. Huon's edited version also has spelling mistakes, such as "Bagkok" for Bangkok, and links to a video removed by youtube. One would almost think that Huon has personal issues with the subject of the article. My original article about Johnson was neutral and factual, with 53 references, as per Wikipedia's well-established policies. In keeping with Wikipedia's policies of civility, what is the best procedure to deal with this? Thanks again Rollingwagon (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

By now I have checked all references. The Economist piece is self-described as a blog post: "In this blog, our Asia correspondents and our Banyan columnist provide comment and analysis on Asia's political and cultural landscape" - an opinion piece. I found no indication of editorial oversight. The number of comments is irrelevant and does not increase the original report's reliability.

Boing Boing apparently once was a magazine but became yet another blog. According to past discussions (for example here and here) it's reliable for Doctorow's opinions, but dubious for statements of fact.

One of the YouTube accounts was discontinued for multiple copyright violations; the other is, I believe, an excerpt of Moore's Fahrenheit 911 which doesn't even mention Johnson.

The "glorified blog" is Johnson's own blog; even if it were reliable (and I don't think it is; it's self-published, and if individual pieces are reproduced by reliable publishers, we should cite those) it's not independent anyway. Hundreds of photos don't make a blog reliable; in fact, the Economist opinion piece explicitly calls something published on the blog "unverified" and says it "cannot endorse its accuracy" - not quite an endorsement of Globalite Magazine's reliability. I'm pretty sure if they cited a New York Times article they wouldn't couch it in such qualifiers.

For the Google hits, see WP:GHITS: Google may find reliable sources, but the number of hits on its own is not an indication of notability or of the lack thereof.

I haven't checked all of the Johnson photos on Wikipedia; they should be either published under a free license or used under the doctrine of fair use. For example, File:Lionel Messi Player of the Year 2011.jpg is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License. That one can be used by anyone. If you know of any photos that are used without either an appropriate license or a sufficient fair use rationale, please raise the issue at WP:Suspected copyright violations so we can get rid of them.

Finally, you had found 53 references, but the vast majority of them don't support the points in the draft, or they are written by Johnson himself, or they don't even devote a single sentence to him. The sources about his siblings don't say that they indeed are Chris Johnson's siblings, the sources about his coworkers almost all don't say they're his coworkers, the Reuters "picture of the decade" source doesn't mention Johnson's involvement and credits someone else with taking the picture, and so on. Why does the draft even discuss the fate of Rosza-Flores? Not a single source mentions both Johnson and Rosza-Flores, and I don't think Johnson was involved in (or reporting on) the Bolivian assassination attempt. Another gem is this blog post, which apparently was written in February but is cited for events in March.

What makes a person notable is not the amount of his own writings or the number of Google hits, but that others have written about him in reliable sources. The best of your draft's sources is the Washington Post article which is misquoted as saying Johnson was "the only western reporter" (in fact it calls him a novelist on vacation, not a journalist, and says nothing about his uniqueness) - at least that is a truly reliable, independent source that mentions Johnson by name. But it's rather obviously not enough as a basis for an article.

The Committee to Protect Journalists is indeed among the better sources, but it's an advocacy group, not a news organization, and once again it's misquoted.

Amazon, on the other hand, has an obvious conflict of interest because it tries to sell Johnson's book, and its author biographies are hardly known for fact-checking; they're commercials. Amazon is definitely not a reliable source. Neither are Bangkok Books, Barnes&Noble or iTunes, for the same reasons.

I'm sorry you found my assessment unhelpful. If you disagree with me about the reliability of certain sources, feel free to raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard for more community input. However, I'm a little surprised that in reply to that statement you list one source that doesn't mention Johnson and two that try to sell his books - it should have been rather obvious that those suffer the very flaws I pointed out. Please also note that I didn't attack you at all; I only commented on the quality of the sources.

The guideline about reliable sources is WP:Identifying reliable sources. Huon (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Huon for your replies to my questions. I am indeed trying to learn the rules and formatting procedures for Wikipedia, since I'm a newcomer here. However, I find your lofty standards almost impossible to attain, and your questioning of the reliability of 53 sources cited in the article raises questions about paranoia and a deep distrust of wikipedia users and newcomers who submit articles on an unpaid, volunteer basis. Huon's comments are largely based on opinions, not verifiable facts supported by evidence. If you applied the same high standards to every Wikipedia article, how many articles would be rejected? Hundreds, thousands? How many entries has Huon rejected? Can Huon be transparent about that, and cite sources? It's not clear what Huon would consider a reliable source of information. Johnson has written a number of articles for the New York Times. Should these be cited? Do New York Times editors find Johnson's work "unreliable"? If so, why have they published his articles over the past decade? You have questioned the reliability of reports in The Economist, the Washington Post, the CPJ, and others. Is this fair? By Huon's lofty standards, is everything posted on Wikipedia therefore based on "unreliable sources", because it is a collection of links to online media, which are in effect self-published my those media? What sources would Huon consider more reliable than the New York Times, The Economist, the Washington Post, the CPJ, AP and Reuters? One can easily refute Huon's opinions point by point. The Economist article, by K.N.C (initials for veteran staff reporter and author Kenneth N. Cukier), quotes Amnesty International, the Justice Ministry of Japan, diplomatic sources, the well-known murder of a foreigner at Narita Airport, and other sources. The article was edited by Digital Editor Tom Standage and others in London. it is not an opinion piece, as Huon earlier claimed. This is a factual error by Huon, which I have refuted, yet Huon continues to cling to a unique and untenable position not based on knowledge of The Economist, or of common journalistic practices. Does it have to be a cover story, written by several staff reporters, in order to be considered "reliable" according to Huon's standards? Is the story an "opinion piece" simply because that is the opinion of Huon? There is nothing in the article by Cukier, edited by Standage, to suggest that the article is an opinion piece, Op-Ed, or anything other than a factual report, akin to thousands of other articles in The Economist. Huon has presented no verifiable evidence to support his claim. The number of comments is indeed relevant, because it supports the fact that the subject is a notable living person, controversial enough to generate several thousands of comments online. What percentage of notable persons approved by Huon and Wikipedia editors can claim the same amount of interest? As for the CPJ article, the CPJ is indeed a news organization, with a large number of editors and reporters. Thus Huon's claim is false, lacking in evidence, and refuted by actual fact. Is Huon suggesting that Johnson and Hamid were not nearly kidnapped in Zamboanga in 2002? The point is not about whether the Philippine military is a reliable source or not. The point is that they, among other sources, reported a kidnapping attempt, which was widely reported by Philippine media, diplomatic sources, the CPJ and others. The Abu Sayyaf have kidnapped hundreds of foreigners and Filipinos. Does Huon have any evidence to refute that fact? Huon's claim seems rather like unnecessary nitpicking, and furthers the suspicion that there is perhaps a personal grudge or issue here, and unfair treatment of a newcomer. The same can be said of Huon's comments about Cory Doctorow and Boing Boing. What evidence can Huon present to support the claim that Doctorow's work is not reliable? What is the relevance of Huon's claim that Boing Boing, "apparently" transforming from a magazine to a blog, as he claims, makes it less reliable? In that case, are Newsweek and the Christian Science Monitor less reliable because they no longer have print editions? Huon has also not provided evidence to support his claim that Globalite Magazine, which contains hundreds of published, professionally edited articles with photos, is not a reliable blog. Does Huon acknowledge there is a difference between, say, a blog about pets, and a blog which is a collection of hundreds of published articles with verifiable information, supported with photos as evidence? Just because The Economist calls K.N.C.'s work a "blog post", does it mean that The Economist suspended its long tradition of fact-checking, accuracy, editorial oversight, and credibility for this particular article? In order for Globalite Magazine to obtain well-known, widely-distributed photos of athletes such as Messi, Nadal, or Durant, the magazine's photographers would have to apply for, and receive, accreditation with FIFA, the ATP, and FIBA, which are endorsing the credibility, notability, and relevance of Globalite Magazine. In other words, the world's largest governing bodies for sports, which severely restrict the number of accredited journalists at events, have endorsed the reliability of Globalite Magazine, while Huon seems to be standing alone on a limb by dismissing it as a "blog", which seems to be a problematic concept according to his definitions of reliability. This presents a catch-22. If Huon finds "blog posts" to be unreliable, then should my article cite print editions of the New York Times, TIME, The Economist, The Christian Science Monitor, Bangkok Books, and media carrying AP and Reuters? In that case, there would be no way to link to print editions. Hence the catch-22, making it impossible to supply such an entry. As for Reuter's, the photos from Lhasa were credited to "stringers" in order to protect the identities of photographers vulnerable to retribution by authorities in China. This is a common practice in the media when concerning sensitive issues in conflict zones. Does Huon think this somehow makes Reuters a less reliable source of information? Does Huon have verifiable evidence to support the suspicion that Johnson lied about supplying those photos to Reuters and AP? If Huon is going to make claims about the credibility of my proposed article, citing 53 references, shouldn't he have to provide verifiable evidence to support his claims? Or can anyone simply dispute any fact they want, without evidence, simply because they don't approve of a particular person, issue or worldview? I do appreciate Huon's attempts at perfection, and enforcement of standards which are not immediately apparent to a newcomer. However, it also raises questions about unnecessary bullying or harassment of a newcomer hoping to write dozens of articles for Wikipedia. Is this not a kind of online hazing? Is this proper behavior for a Help Desk? Is this likely to discourage a newcomer? If I had submitted an article with no references, then it would deserve rejection. However, I submitted an article with no less than 53 references, about a subject who has been written about in hundreds of articles, and whose own work is well-documented in the world's most reliable media organizations. Johnson's work in music, contributing to gold and platinum-selling albums in several countries, would alone merit a wikipedia entry, wouldn't it? There are thousands of wikipedia entries about authors who have one published novel. Johnson now has two. This is in addition to a long list of notable achievements in the field of journalism. Thus it seems unusual for Huon to take issue with this particular article rather than thousands of others with much less verifiable information and fewer citations. Please do continue to reply to my comments. I am indeed trying to learn how to navigate these unfamiliar waters. Rollingwagon (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm very much aware that lots of articles that don't satisfy these standards (and they aren't my standards but Wikipedia's, given in policies and guidelines such as WP:N on notability, WP:V on verifiability, WP:RS on reliable sources and so on). I'd be pleasantly surprised if there were just hundreds or even thousands of problematic articles - my personal guess would be in the six digits. But while other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits.

I have no idea how many submissions I've rejected or accepted, and that's rather irrelevant anyway. If you're really interested you can look up my contributions in the Wikipedia talk namespace; most of those are to article drafts, and I give edit summaries that tell when I declined a submission, including a one-word rationale.

I've pointed out the guideline on identifying reliable sources repeatedly. If Johnson's articles have been published in the New York Times, they're reliable sources. But what Johnson has written is rather obviously not independent of him, and they cannot serve to establish Johnson's notability. The Washington Post source is indeed a reliable independent source, but it doesn't say much about Johnson (and is severely misquoted to boot). I actually said so above and now wonder whether you have read what I wrote. If you really claim that a text hosted under www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/, self-described as a blog providing commentary, is not an opinion piece, you can ask for another opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard: WP:RSN. You say you refuted my claims by pointing out that text was edited by Tom Standage. I found no evidence in support of that claim; the web page itself and the Banyan blog homepage don't mention him. How can I verify that claim?

I know enough about journalistic practice to tell the difference between news articles and commentary, and that newspapers keep them distinct and easily identifiable. For example, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21564885-voter-id-law-distracts-republicans-main-event is a news article on US politics, and http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/10/violence is an opinion piece about roughly the same topic. Even the URL says so. (As an aside, if the number of comments were significant, I'm pretty sure I could find cat photos more notable than Johnson. But as our guideline on notability, WP:N, says, it's coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject that's the basis for notability, and the comments are certainly not reliable.) To be honest, I find the claim that the Committee to Protect Journalists is a news organization bizarre. Their own website says: The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. It doesn't report on press freedom, it promotes it. How is that not an advocacy group? Again, if you disagree, the reliable sources noticeboard is over here. Furthermore, technically they don't report a kidnapping attempt, they report an encounter the Phillippine military called a kidnapping attempt. They take great pains not to endorse that claim. And whether or not Abu Sayyaf kidnap others is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they attempted to kidnap Johnson. I have no idea whether that indeed was a kidnappig attempt or not, and neither had CPJ. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't use CPJ as a source for a claim that CPJ explicitly doesn't make. And as I said before, I don't need proof that some claim in the article is wrong to object to it; rather, the burden of evidence is with the editor who wants a claim included: See WP:BURDEN and WP:V. On Doctorow and Boing Boing, I cited previous discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard. The opinions at that time were that Boing Boing is a reliable source for Doctorow's opinion, but it is a blog and thus suspect for statements of fact. I linked to the archived discussions above. Blogs as self-published sources are always suspect. And Johnson's own blog is doubly inappropriate because it's once again not independent. It might be used for uncontroversial statements of fact such as Johnson's birthday or marital status, but certainly not for Johnson's clash with the Japanese immigration officials. That the Economist's columnist explicitly called Johnson's claims as published on his blog "unverified" isn't promising either. If the columnist didn't believe Johnson's claims without independent confirmation, why should we?

The print editions of the New York Times, TIME, The Economist, The Christian Science Monitor and so on would indeed be reliable sources unless you cite printed opinion pieces. The online editions of those publications are also reliable sources unless you cite opinion pieces. The TIME article on the Bolivian assassination attempt is certainly a reliable source, but what does it tell us about Johnson? Nothing at all. The Christian Science Monitor article cited in the draft is reliable, but once again not independent because it's written by Johnson himself. Bangkok Books is another matter; they're a book publisher, and while books published by Bangkok Books may be reliable sources, their sales blurbs are not. Those are not subject to editorial oversight, and Bangkok Books has a financial interest in Johnson's success.

Regarding Reuters: I don't think they are unreliable, I think they don't say what we cite them for. They don't even mention Johnson - how can we take that as verification of the claim that Johnson supplied those photos? I could just as well claim those photos were supplied not by Johnson, but by John Doe - prove me wrong! In fact, for all I can tell not even Johnson made the claim that he supplied the photos - I only read so in our draft. That makes me wonder: Are you by any chance Christopher Johnson? If so, you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest: Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged.

You keep bringing up the "53 references". Allow me some quick number crunching, based on your version of the draft:

• Of those 53 references, one was a Google Cache copy of another.
• Five were Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source.
• Eight or nine were Johnson's articles published in more or less reliable newspapers ranging from the Christian Science Monitor to AlterNet, the exact number depending on whether he's the author of the South China Daily News article or not.
• Two were articles written by Johnson in other venues that probably are subject to less strict editorial oversight. (including the Foreign Correspondent's Club of Japan; if I'm wrong about that one, remove it here and include it directly above).
• Four were various incarnations of Johnson's blog.
• Three were others' blog posts about Johnson, or at least mentioning him.
• A whopping 14 didn't mention Johnson at all. This includes Reuters and TIME. (The Wikipedia articles mostly didn't mention him either, but I didn't count them here.)
• Five were booksellers and publishers trying to sell Johnson's books.
• One was a website selling MP3s that mentions Johnson's name.
• Two were a lyrics website that included him in their copyright notice; no indication of who wrote that website, and not a sentence devoted to Johnson.
• Five we've already discussed in detail above: The Washington Post, The Economist, Boing Boing and the Committee to Protect Journalists (twice). If the South China Morning Post article wasn't written by Johnson, include it alongside the Washington Post: Reliable and independent, but it provides no details on Johnson beyond his name.
• One was a MySpace page, certainly not reliable.
• One was a Romanian organization that exhibited Johnson's photos. Probably not a reliable source and not independent of Johnson either. It doesn't say much about Johnson anyway.

That's all. The Washington Post is a reliable source that's independent of Johnson and devotes some little coverage to him. All others aren't reliable, aren't independent, provide only trivial coverage or don't mention him at all. As I said before, if you disagree with my assessment of the sources, feel free to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for another opinion.

I'm a little surprised that's all we have. Has Johnson's trouble with Japanese immigrations officials been covered by reports, as opposed to blog posts and opinion pieces? That would be helpful. Has his exhibition in Romania received newspaper coverage? That would be much better than the organization exhibiting the photos itself. Is there a source saying Johnson contributed to the Reuters photos of the decade? That would be great. Can we find the Phillippine news coverage of the supposed kidnapping? It might have something to say about Johnson. Has some newspaper or music magazine covered Johnson's work as a lyricist, in particular with gold or platinum albums? Perhaps a review of that album discussing the quality of the lyrics? That would indeed almost assure his notability by itself, if it's detailed enough. As you see I expect reliable sources on Johnson should exist - but these mostly don't make the cut.

Finally, I'm a little annoyed by the insinuations of bad faith on my part. I've spent hours tidying up your draft, and more hours writing these lengthy explanations - only to find them ignored, dismissed or misrepresented. I've always linked to the relevant policies and guidelines - yet you make it appear a personal crusade, as if I was imposing my own arbitrary standards. That's simply not true. I'm beginning to repeat myself, and Wikipedia has a guideline on that, too: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Huon (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Marie 0812 just noticed an even more deadly problem I missed: The draft was a copy of the Amazon biography (which itself was supplied by the author or his representative), thus a copyright violation. I expect the draft will soon be speedily deleted. A new draft that doesn't violate copyright can be written; the next time around it should be based on what reliable secondary sources have to say about Johnson, and not the sources vaguely agreeing with the draft (or not) be found after the fact. Huon (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your comments. I am trying to rewrite the article, based on your suggestions, but I can't find it. Where did it go? What proof is there of copyright violations? I have another question, concerning a number of damaging claims made in public about the reliability and credibility of senior journalists. Have Wikipedia editors ever been charged with libel, or defaming persons such as journalists? Thanks again Rollingwagon (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The draft was blanked because it was a likely copyright violation. It was a word-for-word copy of the Amazon biography. Rather surprisingly, that biography has now changed. I have no idea what happened to it, or what Wikipedia guidelines have to say about that. I'm no legal expert, but I don't think copyright vanishes just because the original text is no longer available online.

To my knowledge no editors have ever been charged with libel - at least, not successfully. We take libel seriously; that's why we insist that biographies of living persons must be based on the best sources available - reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Content that isn't based on reliable sources may be removed outright.

You might also want to have a look at our policy on legal threats. Given your past claims about my supposed bias and our disagreement about various sources' reliability or lack thereof, one might read that as a veiled threat that I might find myself sued for libel. Huon (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is on the web doesn't mean it's a copyright violation, Amazon's terms claim neither copyright nor exclusive license. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_October_25#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FChristopher_Johnson_journalist Nobody Ent 11:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, you are misinformed on Wikipedia's copyright policy, and are in turn mis-informing this editor. The Amazon wording is not a compatible license. Johnson can release the material under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, but he must explictly do so following the procedures at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This is required when the text has been previously published elsewhere. Until then it cannot appear anywhere on Wikipedia. And all of this is assuming that the editor in question actually is Johnson. This is complicated by the fact that the material also appears at Bangkok Books. Voceditenore (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. I have read each one carefully. In order to build consensus, I'm going to offer a pragmatic solution that addresses the concerns of all parties.

First of all, let's agree that Wikipedia's core principals should supersede any attempt to use a narrow or strict interpretation of any one of the hundreds of countervailing or contradictory rules and policies governing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, above all other things, a non-profit organization supported by volunteers and amateurs, not a hedge fund, academic institution, or religious cult where superiors or hardliners have authority over newcomers or outsiders. As you all know, Wikipedia is a "free-content encyclopedia". Thus any unilateral or multilateral attempt to quash, delete, block, ban, prohibit, censor or restrict someone else's right to enter verifiable, accurate content, in good faith, goes against this core principal. To quote the About section of Wikipedia's main page: "Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time." Furthermore, since Wikipedia has an estimated 77,000 active contributors and 22 million articles, Wikipedia's ethos is based upon collaboration and cooperation across cultures, not a schoolyard bullying mentality where might makes right, or where one or two persons can interpret or manipulate rules to their advantage and conspire to quash someone else's good faith contributions.

Though Wikipedia has Five Pillars, and an array of policies and guidelines, "it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing." All of this is clearly stated on the "About" section of Wikipedia's main page. "Wikipedia is written largely by amateurs. Those with expert credentials are given no additional weight." This means that no editor, whether Huon, Kelly Marie 0812, DGG, Jayron, Vocenitedore or others, have more weight than the newcomer RollingWagon. The policies pertaining to this principal are clearly stated in the section titled "Don't bite the newcomer." Thus there is a better solution than making hasty judgements to quash or delete an article without cordial, open communications and consultations with the editor who donated the content to the Wikipedia community in the first place. In other words, it's not in accordance with Wikipedia principles for editors to arbitrarily and swiftly delete my article without asking me directly for my input into the decision. RollingWagon will accept, in good faith, that this action may have been done in good faith, due to a misunderstanding or confusion about copyright and legal issues. RollingWagon will clear up these issues later in this statement. In future, if you have quibbles about RolingWagon's work, please feel free to discuss it with him directly, on a basis of equality and transparency, rather than taking unilateral decisions based on knee-jerk reactions or hasty decisions.

With these core principals in mind, let's build a consensus. Firstly, if you read RollingWagon's entry in detail, without prejudice or preconceived notions, RollingWagon did in fact follow Wikipedia's principals and policies by providing a neutral, dispassionate article with 53 references, containing hard, verifiable, well-established facts -- not opinions or exaggerations or self-serving ads -- that are truthful, accurate, and common knowledge, and widely available on multiple sites across the internet. There is no original research on the Wikipedia entry. There was no libel, vandalism, shameless self-promotion, advertising or any other infringement of Wikipedia's core policies of free-content. Huon, who started this discussion, originally praised the article for it's "above-average quality", and reposted it with more than 40 references. So let's all agree that Huon's initial sentiment is a good basis to build a more detailed and well-supported article.

RollingWagon's reliable sources include articles or mentions about Johnson in the New York Times, The Economist, TIME, Reuters, Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and many others. These sources are cited in millions of Wikipedia articles, without trouble. Any attempt to dispute the reliability of these sources, due to a personal bias or worldview, even if well-founded and well-articulated, will not serve to build a consensus in adherence to Wikipedia's core principal of "free-content." On the contrary, such arguments will only waste time, create friction, lead to censorship, and impede the flow of "free-content".

As for questions about whether Johnson is a notable living person, Google results for "Christopher Johnson Japan journalist" turn up more than 10 pages of articles ABOUT Johnson, not BY JOHNSON or his associates. These articles, in The Economist and others, clearly pass the threshold stated in "The answer to life, the universe, and everything," as pointed out by Vocenitedore. Johnson is not merely a passing reference in these articles. In fact, there are more than 50 articles devoted solely to discussing Johnson's work and actions.

Kelly Marie 0812, Vocenitedore and others have raised valid concerns about copyright issues, which are an important issue for all editors. Even if they are not indeed intellectual property rights lawyers, or Supreme Court Justices ruling on constitutional issues concerning piracy and freedom of expression, let's assume that these editors acted in good faith, based on what they knew at the time. Nobody Ent has also made valid points that "we accept photos/artwork all the time based on the simple assertion of the uploader."

Johnson or his representatives, agents or publishers have resolved this issue by making a clear, unambiguous statement allowing unrestricted use of material in his author bio on Amazon.com. "The author has asserted his right to allow free and unrestricted usage of this material, in whole or in part, on all websites worldwide, including Wikipedia, Bangkok Books, Myspace, Reverbnation, Facebook and others. No other party has the right to censor, prohibit or block use of this material for any reason." Indeed, Vocenitedore's research efforts have found similar unrestricted usage of this material by Johnson's publisher Bangkok Books. So, clearly, there is no longer any copyright issue, since the copyright holder has asserted his rights to allow everyone to use the material. This seems to be consistent with Johnson's longtime policy of allowing Wikipedia editors free use of hundreds of his copyrighted photos, as correctly stated by Chris Cunningham.

Thus, if we can agree to move beyond issues of copyright violations, let's discuss the issue of legal threats. Regardless of how some people might interpret various writings, nobody has made any overt legal threat on this issue. Having said that, we should all keep in mind that Wikipedia, though a prestigious non-profit with an estimated 470 million unique visitors per month, is not above libel laws designed to protect the reputations of persons. Disparaging, or disputing, or casting aspersion upon the reputations of Johnson, Cory Doctorow, Kenneth Cukier, Tom Standage, Urban Hamid, Daniel Pearl, or any other journalist or author does nothing to serve Wikipedia's core principals, no matter what can be found in forums on Wikipedia or any other website. We should assume, in good faith, that these are all hard-working people supporting families, and they do not deserve to have their names sullied in online media such as Wikipedia. If somebody wants to go online to "out" people, or vent their bigotry, hate or frustration with Big Media, indy media, self-promoters, artists, musicians, advertisers, agents, publishers, or whoever, they should take that to another site, not Wikipedia. I'm sure we can all agree on this point.

Chris Cunningham made the salient point that Wikipedia has used "a good number of high quality free images that we've grabbed from his Flickr account." Thus, a large number of Wikipedia editors have endorsed the credibility of Johnson as a world-class journalist and photographer. It seems that Wikipedia editors have used perhaps 100 or more of Johnson's photos on entries across several languages. Thus it can be said that Johnson has been contributing to Wikipedia long before some of our fellow editors have. We won't gain anything by a hostile, uppity, law enforcement attitude toward someone who has made significant donations, free of charge, to Wikipedia, and who may have a personal relation to the founders.

It also seems preposterous to suggest that Johnson's bio on Amazon.com, Bangkok Books, Globalite Magazine and other sources is anything less than credible. It seems implausible that a veteran foreign correspondent with a 25-year career, who depends on credibility to sell his or her work, would concoct a massive collection of lies, including about his brothers and sisters, in order to promote a book, an album, a photo, a t-shirt of something else. There is nothing wrong with amassing a collection of notable achievements over one's life, and listing those in a bio to reach mass audiences. Wikipedia editors should not misuse Wikipedia policies to vent their envy or jealousy at people who have worked hard to achieve some sort of notoriety or notability, whether in the media or other avenues. If you don't like how millions of artists promote their own work, in order to achieve some sort of name or fame, then you should take up these issues on other sites, not Wikipedia. Editors should also note that there is clearly a difference between teenagers using Wikipedia to promote their local garage band, and veteran journalists whose verifiable works have reached millions over decades, as there is also a difference between an unheralded amateur blog about salamanders, and a blog on The Economist that has editorial oversight, hundreds of staffers, and millions of readers.

There's also an issue about selective enforcement of Wikipedia policies. The fact is, Wikipedia.org editors have permitted the posting of thousands, perhaps millions, of entries about notable persons whose achievements are less than those of Johnson, and less supported with evidence and references. If overzealous editors were to enforce every rule, without regard for Wikipedia's core principals, then myself and other editors would have justification to remove millions of entries. For example, one could start with Johnson's peers in Asia. Alex Kerr, Christopher G. Moore, Richard Lloyd Parry, Jake Adelstein, Karl Greenfeld, and hundreds of others are all notable persons whose work spans the worlds of journalism and publishing. Their biographies on Wikipedia tend to cite their own blogs, or publishers, or their friends articles in newspapers or magazines, and little else. They cite fewer references than the entry about Johnson. The entry of Kerr, for example, derives information from Kerr's two blogs, and a magazine he edits. As far as I can tell, there are no references or citations. The entries for Adelstein and Moore appear to be directly supplied by their publishers, or the authors themselves. They site, as references, stories about themselves in their own books. Yet nobody is suggesting we tear down their Wikipedia articles, since Kerr, Moore, Adelstein and others are well-established writers, not teenagers creating hobby pages on Myspace. Nobody is suggesting that we delete the names of Adelstein's children, or Moore's list of awards, since they have no references from reliable, independent sources. We have no reason to believe that they or their representatives would publish lies in order to promote themselves, and we should assume the same about Johnson's life story as stated on his bio at Amazon.com, Bangkok Books, and other media. If anybody can successfully refute facts about the life stories of Johnson, Moore, Adelstein, Kerr, or others, I will stand corrected, and carefully consider their arguments, if based on evidence and logical reasoning.

Furthermore, if we did quash their sites, citing one of a large number of countervailing or contradictory rules or policies, it would clearly violate Wikipedia's ethos and core principals. It would also defy common sense, and create an atmosphere of retribution, not cooperation. So there should not be a double-standard applied to Johnson or any other person who has notable achievements in terms of creating books, photos, albums, news articles, TV reports or other works reaching mass audiences for decades.

With the spirit of consensus and collaboration in mind, I think we can agree that the best solution is to undelete the RollingWagon entry about Johnson, or repost Huon's well-formatted version, citing 43 references. Kelly Marie 0812 will surely agree this is appropriate, since she had originally apologized for rejecting the article in the first place, not for any questions about notability, copyright or other matters, but because of the formatting, which Huon has astutely corrected: "Sorry for any misunderstanding here. At the time I reviewed it, the repeated content, lack of section headers, and reference formatting combined led me to believe it was a test and not meant for submission."

In attempt to avoid a further escalation with an editor refuting dozens of his points, Huon has wisely offered to bow out and focus his energies on other entries. I believe this is a positive approach, since he has already stated his views in thousands of words, and spent more than enough time and energy reformatting the original entry and explaining Wikipedia policies and practices to a newcomer. As for myself, RollingWagon will continue to work hard to fill any holes in terms of references or citations, since the article is likely to evolve over time, unless the subject dies or abandones his career. It's a win-win situation for everyone. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding. Rollingwagon (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Did it not become obvious to everyone after his second edit that Rollingwagon is Christopher Johnson? 222.144.121.143 (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)