Talk:Kingsport, Tennessee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Tennessee, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Tennessee.

[edit] Ayers, Bettini

Verification for Tom Bettini and Ed Ayers. For Bettini, see his myspace page at www.myspace.com/souplineman . For Ayers, please see _What Caused the Civil War? Reflections on the South and Southern History_, Chapter 2 for his grade school career at Andrew Johnson Elementary, and his high school career at Sullivan Central. (I'm sorry if this last one is not online, it is, however, much more verifiable than a Wikipedia entry. It is a shame that common knowledge has to be "verified" by someone who knows less about the subject than I do just becuase it isn't already on Wikipedia.)

Here's more information. For Ayers, see http://pr.tennessee.edu/alumnus/alumarticle.asp?id=555 , an article from the UTK Alumni magazine. For even more on Bettini, Google Tom Bettini Kingsport Jackyl and you will get a plethora of links to the Kingsport Times-News with pics of Bettini, all of which mention his Jackyl days. Is this enough verification? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.77.170.222 (talk • contribs).

Hi, there. Thanks for the Ayers reference; I have added it to the article, but I hope you'll feel welcome to add it yourself in the future because you're certainly welcome to! However, I have removed the Bettini mention from the article again. We can't use myspace as a reference and I was unable to easily find the news articles that you mentioned; please see the reliable sources guideline. Thank you. --Takeel 16:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Myspace is not a verifiable site but another Wikipedia article is??? That is utter nonsense. If you think I went out of my way to forge a myspace site just to put up misinformation on Wikipedia, you are in need of sympathetic consideration. This is why Wikipedia will never be an academically usable site. Fascists like Takeel delete things that are totally correct because they can't use Google and as a result they make the articles weaker than they should be. And yeah, block me for harassment, that's fine. I'm on a community internet site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.241.37.140 (talk • contribs).

Good day. According to our community-devised guideline, Myspace is not a reliable source. If you don't agree with this, you might want to discuss this at the appropriate talk page, linked here.. I noticed that the reference you provided for Bettini is a user-submitted photo and caption rather than one produced by the Kingsport Times-News. This is pretty similar to the way a blog works; Wikipedia does not consider blogs to be reliable sources, so I ask that you please reconsider this reference. I will probably consult WP:3O regarding this, as well. Other than this, please do not foster personal attacks against me; personal attacks are forbidden on Wikipedia and will indeed result in attackers being blocked. Thank you. --Takeel 18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd opinion

Myspace should not serve as the primary source for a newspaper article. Any time you quote or cite a newspaper article, the newspaper itself should serve as the original source. Since most newspapers are publishing their content online, it should be easy to supply a reference for the quote.TheRingess 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about you blocking the node for Panera Bread company, so if you feel led to do so, by all means please do so. As far as reliability of Wikipedia, I turn your attention to http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 , which I think pretty much hits it right on the head. The problem is that I am adding something that is legit and you are treating me like it is vandalism because it is not "verifiable." I then give you two sources and they are still not "verifiable." Look Bettini up in the darn phone book and call him and ask if he used to play for Jackyl if you want to. I would argue here again that Bettini is more important than Sheri Martel (for the simple reason that he was the naked guy at Woodstock 94), but because the internet is filled with pro wrestling geeks, she has a Wikipedia entry. Therefore, her place in Kingsport's article is somehow more legitimate than a platinum-selling recording artist. Things such as this skew Wikipedia's reliability and make it the source for niche knowledge, not comprehensive knowledge. Everytime I try to edit something and add information that I know if true, someone like you hops on and cuts it off and argues some sort of "community standards." This restricts knowledge, it doesn't propagate it. And that's true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.241.37.140 (talk • contribs).

Good day. The problem with those references was their reliability. You might want to check out WP:RS. Thanks. --Takeel 18:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Takeel, I am finding it really strange as to why you have to use "community guidelines" to delete something when it is true. Do you really, really for one minute think that I would go to the trouble of creating a fake myspace page over two years ago and posting false photos on the Times-News website (also well before this debate started) just so I could vandalize a Wikipedia page about Kingsport? I KNOW that this guy lives in Kingsport, I can prove it, and yet you delete it because these pages are not reliabe! Please, please tell me how that propagates knowledge? I look forward to your response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.87.228 (talk • contribs).

My response is "you might want to check out WP:RS," just like before. :) What we add to the encyclopedia must come from reliable and verifiable sources. This is vital. --Takeel 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That Onion article is funny; it illustrates exactly why there is a need for reliable references on wikipedia. Obviously there is a long way to go and a great many articles are unreferenced. It's hard to go back to stuff added years ago and find good references and added appropriate citations, but newly added info, true or not, ought to improve wikipedia's reliability by using references. On the other hand, I totally agree that there is a great mass of "niche knowledge" on wikipedia. It's ironic that there are in-depth pages on every single episodes of every TV show, it seems, but great gaps and stubs on things like mountain ranges and rivers. It is funny what constitutes "notable" sometimes. In any case, the need for citing reliable sources is important, even though it can be a pain and can sometimes result in true and useful knowledge not being able to be added. Pfly 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is a bunch of junk. There has to be a human element of inference in the production and transmission of knowledge or else the mechanism becomes too automated and too restricted to be useful. Tom Bettini (to use the example currently up for discussion) lives in Kingsport. I know that he is from Kingsport because he walked through my high school in 1993 to visit his former teachers. I know this because I read it in the Loafer over the years, etc. I know this because it is a commonly accepted fact. Because I can't find a linkable web page that you people find verifiable, you are deleting it. As I have argued, the sheer number of existing, unrelated websites that you people find as "unreliable" inescapably point to the fact that Tom Bettini lives in Kingsport. If an historian was writing a history of Kingsport, these would be used as evidence and the discussion would move on because that historian has weighed the evidence and it seems pretty clear that the former bassist of Jackyl is from Kingsport.

ALSO -- I find no reliable source that Sherri Martel lives in Kingsport, other than her Wikipedia page. I demand evidence that Sherri Martel lives in Kingsport or else I will delete her from the list of notable residents of Kingsport. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.99.123 (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

I've actually been playing Devil's Advocate on this "edit skirmish." On the one hand, I see the anonymous editor's points: s/he is not vandalizing, is adding useful information, and is making an effort to cite sources. On the other hand, I see Takeel's point: information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable.

Interestingly, I don't think WP:RS is the best argument for removing the data. WP:RS specifically deals with "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." I don't think anyone's challenging the fact that these two people are from Kingsport. In addition, WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy.

WP:V, however, is a policy, and therefore must be followed if we're going to work on Wikipedia. It plainly says "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." Whether or not we like or agree with this policy, we're at their house and must play by their rules.

Original editor: Check out wikitravel.org. I think their informal style may suit you better than Wikipedia's more rigid way of doing things. I'm by no means running you off, but their page on Kingsport needs a lot of love and might be a good way for you to contribute. --Dmleach 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the Loafer? Maybe it's a reliable source that you could use. --Takeel 15:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Loafer is a free weekly newspaper covering the Tri-Cities. It's been around at least fifteen years and is as reliable as any community newspaper; certainly enough to serve as a source for the subject at hand. --Dmleach 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi dmleach, my fellow DB Class of 1993 member. As you well know, the Loafer has no sort of online presence archived that I can quote. Maybe you can vouch for me as a reliable source (I do have a Ph.D in history) so Takeel will not delete my stuff any more???

You're also Class of 1993? Who are you? Anyhoo, the citation doesn't necessarily have to be online. You can cite a book or a print newspaper just like you might for one of the many research papers you wrote en route to that doctorate. WP:CITE/ES has information on what to include (newspaper name, author, date, article, page, etc.)

Sadly, it's not a matter of vouching for you; if it were, I'd be happy to do so. As I mentioned earlier, to work on Wikipedia, we have to play by their rules. The alternative is to sit back and read the work of others or play somewhere else. As it happens, this isn't the only wiki I work on. My suburb of Atlanta just launched its own wiki last year, and I contribute to it from time to time. Their rules are much more lax, because that's the tone they're after. --Dmleach 18:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to give my name on the big Internet thingee. We went to RNR together also. I was on the class reunion committee (the only male on it). I can kind of see your point as to the "play by their rules," but the problem is that everyone on the big Internet thingee cites Wikipedia because, unfortunately, it is seen as the expert site. It isn't, of course, but that is how it is regarded. But oh well. The sad thing is that people like Takeel think they have to live by the rules instead of taking a preponderance of information on a case by case basis and weighing the probability that it is true or it is false. To place a person in a town after he is listed on a Myspace page, numerous times on a photoblog, and plays in a current band listed on the GoTricities website seems to me to meet a reasonable burden of proof. Takeel, however, is tied into the WikiGroupThink rule and refuses to view evidence on its merits. A dogmatic rule about sources and knowledge is, as I say, very restrictive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.105.243 (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Shoot me an email at dmleach@yahoo.com; it would be fun to catch up. As for adding the information, I think we're at an impasse. You see the point to verifiability, but disagree. That's cool. I agree with you that Wikipedia is taken as an expert source when it has flaws; so are other flawed sources. Nature found that Wikipedia is not significantly more inaccurate than Britannica, and Britannica gets used for much higher profile jobs than many sources. No one source should ever be used for anything serious without further investigation. That's why it's so important to add links for Wikipedia to other sources. --Dmleach 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)