Talk:William Revelli

Middle name

I recently just found a few sources that include William Revelli's middle name. I noticed that in the past it has been added on the article, only to be deleted over and over again, even though a source (which is among the sources I found) was cited along with the content. I suppose these sources are reliable, huh? Anyway, I believe Revelli's middle name should be included in the article. Please feel free to reply with your thoughts about this. I will be glad to here your replies. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Bobby Joe (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I've seen enough reliable sources to be convinced that his middle name was in fact "Donald." Example (1 of many): https://books.google.com/books?id=mpGfAAAAMAAJ&lpg=RA4-PA40&ots=iyK28Lja7y&dq=%22william%20donald%20revelli%22&pg=RA4-PA40#v=onepage&q=%22william%20donald%20revelli%22&f=false I am in favor of adding his full middle name somewhere in the article. Doesn't seem like any controversy here. ShoneBrooks (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hah! Just goes to show you can't always trust what you read. His real middle name was Dominic according the U.S. government. Text updated and one (of several available) citations referenced. ShoneBrooks (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Great. Hope you enjoyed y ok ur conversation with yourself, but that doesn't make this good content and I'm removing it (again).John from Idegon (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

John, whether or not content is "good" is very subjective. In your revision comments, you described Revelli's middle name as "not vital, or even important." I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, or why you feel his name should be suppressed, but Wikipedia is about facts and making those facts available to its readers. Some people (including myself) have been curious as to what the "D" in William D. Revelli stands for. By adding it to the article, that fact helps meet that desire to learn more about the man. There are plenty of other Wikipedia articles that provide the same level of detail, including those of David Bowie and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Why are you so dead-set against this factual and well-cited edit? ShoneBrooks (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Factual? That's in dispute. Useful? How? It's utility is indicated by the amount of reliable secondary sources discussing the subject. You've got a primary source and a totally unreliable genealogy website. Discussion of a subject's middle name is not standard content and your sourcing does not indicate a general interest. In case you don't understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, it is to summarize what others have written about the subject in reliable secondary sources. No secondary sources, no content. Not difficult to understand. John from Idegon (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The genealogy web site merely provides access to the primary, government source. The State of Michigan also records his name as William Dominic Revelli (Michigan Department of Vital and Health Records. Michigan, Death Index, 1971-1996 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 1998. Original data: Michigan Department of Vital and Health Records. Michigan Death Index. Lansing, MI, USA.) Anything can be disputed by anyone saying something different. That doesn't change the facts as presented in primary sources. I have shown examples of other, current Wikipedia articles including middle names of celebrities. What Wikipedia policy are you citing to assert that they are non-standard, or disallowed for lack of perceived utility? The term, "tidbit of information" would seem to apply and is a basic aspect of contributing to articles (Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#The_basics_of_contributing). Whether or not Government records amount to "mainstream knowledge" I suppose is debatable, but at the least, it falls into the realm of public record, and is certainly verifiable. Dr. Revelli's World War II Draft registration card (on file with the U.S. Government and publicly accessible) also records his middle name as Dominic, though it does get the spelling wrong ("Dominec"). The fact that so few secondary sources include his middle name is precisely the Wikipedia-sanctioned basis for citing the primary sources in question, "specific facts may be taken from primary sources" (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources). If this is the primary objection, I'd be happy to alter the citation to more clearly indicate the sources as primary as opposed to secondary. Would that get us to consensus on this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shonebrooks (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

While giving this more thought, it occurred to me that the reference I cited, the Andrea Doria passenger list, can actually be viewed concurrently as a Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary source, making it quite valuable in vetting the reliability of the fact in question (Dr. Revelli's middle name). Most would view it as a Primary source because it is an official government document. But it also serves as a Secondary source because its creation involved the INS agent in question viewing Dr. Revelli's passport (#808102) and writing down what he saw there, which included the middle name, Dominic. So that provides us with secondary access to that passport even though it is not publicly available. In the Tertiary sense, this document also points to other, official governmental identification documentation. Since you must demonstrate to the government's satisfaction your true identity when applying for a passport, the fact that this passport (#808102) was issued to Dr. Revelli bearing his middle name, Dominic, provides strong evidence that Dr. Revelli had previously provided other documents like a Driver's License and/or birth certificate bearing that information with which the passport was issued. Additional examples of celebrities with FEATURED Wikipedia articles that provide a middle name or the name behind a commonly noted initial; V._Gordon_Childe, O._G._S._Crawford, Homer_Davenport, James_B._Longacre, etc. Wikipedia has deemed these and others like them to represent "the best articles" based on "accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style." So including what the "D." in William D. Revelli actually stands for is by no means some sort of taboo or indicator of quality problems for the article on the whole.ShoneBrooks (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)