Template:Did you know nominations/Edward L. Feightner
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Prioryman (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Edward L. Feightner
edit- ... that LCDR Edward "Whitey" Feightner was the first and only pilot to land the dash-1 variant of this aircraft on a carrier?
Created/expanded by Skeet Shooter (talk). Self nom at 03:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice article. The hook fact is supported in two sources (footnotes 46 and 47 in the current version) that are self-published and therefore not reliable as required. Please find a reliable source and use this in the article instead. In general you don't need a citation after every sentence; when one source supports a whole passage just stick the footnote at the end of the passage. Lagrange613 02:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Lagrange. I added a reliable source published in Flight Journal for the hook; see footnote 46 in this updated current version. I'll also take a look at improving the article based on WP:OVERCITE. Skeet Shooter (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Problems with self-published and hence unreliable sources throughout the article and with copyright violation/close paraphrasing. Some examples:
- Article: "Feightner attended the Naval Amphibious Warfare School at Little Creek, Virginia from November 1965 to February 1966. He then served as commanding officer of the amphibious assault ship USS Okinawa (LPH-3)." Veteran Tributes: "He attended the U.S. Naval Amphibious Warfare School at Little Creek, Virginia, from November 1965 to February 1966, and then served as Commanding Officer of the amphibious assault ship USS Okinawa (LPH-3) from February 1966 to March 1967."
- Article: "On the first day of the raid, March 30, 1944, Feightner became an ace when he shot down a 'Zeke' over the island of Peleliu and was credited with a probable second." Ace Pilots: "He became an ace on 30 March 1944 over Peleliu when he destroyed one Zeke and was credited with a second as a probable."
- Article: "... he participated in several fighter studies that resulted in the development of the Grumman F-14 Tomcat and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet." Ace Pilots again: "... he participated in several Fighter Studies, resulting in the development of the F-14 Tomcat and F-18 Hornet."
- The close paraphrasing of online sources makes me nervous about what's been done with offline sources. Lagrange613 06:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize my text was so close to the original in those instances. I try to follow the techniques described in WP:PARAPHRASE (e.g. taking notes from multiple sources, etc.), but I wasn't very successful in the examples you pointed out. I'll go back and rework the article. Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you feel the examples provided should be re-paraphrased or deleted? Although the sources are essentially self-published, the material is not contentious or likely to be challenged. Should any statement supported only by one of these sources be removed? The article also states Feightner was captain of the USS Chikaskia. Although the source (navsource) is self-published, they show a USN photograph of Feightner at the change of command ceremony. Would this combination be considered reliable? Thanks for your help. This part of Wiki has always been a bit confusing to me. Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would recommend rephrasing each passage and double-checking the content sourced to offline sources, as well. Using minimal citations as I suggested above may help, as it forces you to extract content rather than sentences from sources. I've also found "likely to be challenged" a bit slippery (probably no way around it), but DYK has a slightly higher standard: "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources". I interpret this to mean that an unreliable source here and there shouldn't prevent approval (new articles are often works in progress) but reliance on self-published sources throughout the article is going too far. This includes not just the sources I listed above but also airfields-freeman.com, americancombatplanes.com, etc. Lagrange613 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a proper paraphrase of two sentences that each contained essential points, so I tried to paraphrase the paragraph from which the sentences were taken. What do you think of the following?
- From 1964 to 1967, Feightner served as captain of two U.S. Navy ships – the fleet oiler USS Chikaskia (AO-54) and the amphibious assault ship USS Okinawa. Chikaskia deployed to the Mediterranean in 1965 and provided underway replenishment to many ships including the USS Forrestal (CVA-59) and USS Shangri-La (CV-38).[72] After learning the techniques of amphibious operations at the Naval Amphibious Warfare School at Little Creek, Virginia, Feightner commanded Okinawa during a tour of the Caribbean in 1966.[2] At the conclusion of this deployment in 1967, he brought Chikaskia to her new home in San Diego, California, where she became part of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[74]
- I think this reads better and does not infringe on the original text but is less precise due to the broader date ranges. Two footnotes [71] and [73] would move into External links since the fact that Feightner was captain of the ships can be deduced (although not explicitly stated) from [72] and [74]. I wanted to keep [2] as that was the only reference that showed he attended the Naval Amphibious Warfare School. Feightner is notable mostly for his combat flying in WWII that is documented in reliable sources, but I wanted to provide a more complete story of his life and include facts that may be less notable and not included in WWII aviation combat books. I haven't been able to find the needed level of detail at US Navy web sites. Skeet Shooter (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a proper paraphrase of two sentences that each contained essential points, so I tried to paraphrase the paragraph from which the sentences were taken. What do you think of the following?
- I would recommend rephrasing each passage and double-checking the content sourced to offline sources, as well. Using minimal citations as I suggested above may help, as it forces you to extract content rather than sentences from sources. I've also found "likely to be challenged" a bit slippery (probably no way around it), but DYK has a slightly higher standard: "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources". I interpret this to mean that an unreliable source here and there shouldn't prevent approval (new articles are often works in progress) but reliance on self-published sources throughout the article is going too far. This includes not just the sources I listed above but also airfields-freeman.com, americancombatplanes.com, etc. Lagrange613 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you feel the examples provided should be re-paraphrased or deleted? Although the sources are essentially self-published, the material is not contentious or likely to be challenged. Should any statement supported only by one of these sources be removed? The article also states Feightner was captain of the USS Chikaskia. Although the source (navsource) is self-published, they show a USN photograph of Feightner at the change of command ceremony. Would this combination be considered reliable? Thanks for your help. This part of Wiki has always been a bit confusing to me. Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize my text was so close to the original in those instances. I try to follow the techniques described in WP:PARAPHRASE (e.g. taking notes from multiple sources, etc.), but I wasn't very successful in the examples you pointed out. I'll go back and rework the article. Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Lagrange. I added a reliable source published in Flight Journal for the hook; see footnote 46 in this updated current version. I'll also take a look at improving the article based on WP:OVERCITE. Skeet Shooter (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The rewording above is better. You should strive not to paraphrase what you read but to express what you learn from reading in your own words. The distinction is subtle but vital. The essay on close paraphrasing has a number of good tips. However, the paragraph itself is still a problem because all the sources listed ([2], [72], and [74] in this revision) are self-published. WP:BLPSPS is clear that self-published sources are unacceptable in a BLP, and WP:WIADYK is clear that articles that violate BLP policy can't be accepted at DYK. Lagrange613 01:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I will keep looking for reliable sources. However, I read that "self-published about self" sources are permitted as long as they meet five criteria. Footnote [72] in this revision links to a photo archive on navsource.org that states "Photos from the collections of ... RADM E. L. Feightner..." Since Feightner provided the information to navsource.org and the five criteria are met, wouldn't this material be permissible under WP:ABOUTSELF? Also, is footnote [74] that links to the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) considered reliable since it is published by the U.S. Naval History & Heritage Command? Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unless Feightner publishes navsource.org, it's not self-published by him. Yes, DANFS is reliable. Sorry, I think I mixed up [73] and [74]. Lagrange613 18:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Feightner is 92 years old and probably won't be self-publishing by any literal interpretation of the phrase. What options does a WWII veteran have? It seemed reasonable to me that he would give his memorabilia to a web site specializing in military history that could make the material available to all and still attribute Feightner as the original source. To me, such actions meet the intent of WP:ABOUTSELF. But even if one interprets the Wiiki policy in other ways, the material I wanted to use as a reliable source of Feightner's naval commands comes from the US Navy. Isn't the US Navy the reliable source in this case rather than the web site that happens to host the photos? Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seems reasonable to me, too, but unfortunately that's not enough. An unreliable source does not make itself reliable by claiming to quote a reliable source, no matter how plausible you or I think that claim is. "Einstein believed Time Cube was correct" is no worse to source to an SPS than "Einstein told me he believed Time Cube was correct". Lagrange613 18:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- WP:ABOUTSELF appears to permit an unreliable source to make itself reliable by claiming to be published by the subject. The policy uses the words "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." I interpreted "and questionable sources" to permit individuals to place material related to themselves on web servers that they themselves do not publish. Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Themselves" still applies. Navsource.org may be used as a reliable source for claims about navsource.org. Lagrange613 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree "navsource.org may be used as a reliable source for claims about navsource.org" is an example of the "self-published" aspect of WP:ABOUTSELF. But the policy also states "and questionable sources" which to me permits other unreliable web sites to be recognized as reliable sources for claims about the subject. For example, material navsource.org places on Facebook may be used as a reliable source for claims about navsource.org. The web site hosting the material (Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc) does not matter; only that the subject is making a claim about itself. I think that also includes "material Feightner places on navsource.org may be used as a reliable source for claims about Feightner". Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- On Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr, users self-publish about themselves. With navsource.org, sometimes people send stuff in, and the webmaster curates and publishes it, maybe with some commentary. Unless Feightner is the webmaster, he is not publishing. Therefore it is not self-published about himself. It is navsource.org, not Feightner, that is making the claim about him, so we can't use it in a BLP. Lagrange613 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with that interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF as it needlessly excludes individuals who do not have a specific set of computer skills. Politicians maintain web sites and Facebook pages to publish information about themselves, but I doubt if many of them are the webmaster or even typing the text that appears on these sites. Nor would I expect them to perform such activities themselves. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Where in WP:ABOUTSELF does it say anything about computer skills? It applies to websites but also books, newspaper articles, magazine articles.... The point isn't to be "needlessly exclusive" but to keep content in articles verifiable and ensure articles maintain a neutral point of view. Wikipedia only has three core content policies, and that's two of them right there. Lagrange613 17:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with that interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF as it needlessly excludes individuals who do not have a specific set of computer skills. Politicians maintain web sites and Facebook pages to publish information about themselves, but I doubt if many of them are the webmaster or even typing the text that appears on these sites. Nor would I expect them to perform such activities themselves. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- On Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr, users self-publish about themselves. With navsource.org, sometimes people send stuff in, and the webmaster curates and publishes it, maybe with some commentary. Unless Feightner is the webmaster, he is not publishing. Therefore it is not self-published about himself. It is navsource.org, not Feightner, that is making the claim about him, so we can't use it in a BLP. Lagrange613 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree "navsource.org may be used as a reliable source for claims about navsource.org" is an example of the "self-published" aspect of WP:ABOUTSELF. But the policy also states "and questionable sources" which to me permits other unreliable web sites to be recognized as reliable sources for claims about the subject. For example, material navsource.org places on Facebook may be used as a reliable source for claims about navsource.org. The web site hosting the material (Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc) does not matter; only that the subject is making a claim about itself. I think that also includes "material Feightner places on navsource.org may be used as a reliable source for claims about Feightner". Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Themselves" still applies. Navsource.org may be used as a reliable source for claims about navsource.org. Lagrange613 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- WP:ABOUTSELF appears to permit an unreliable source to make itself reliable by claiming to be published by the subject. The policy uses the words "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." I interpreted "and questionable sources" to permit individuals to place material related to themselves on web servers that they themselves do not publish. Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seems reasonable to me, too, but unfortunately that's not enough. An unreliable source does not make itself reliable by claiming to quote a reliable source, no matter how plausible you or I think that claim is. "Einstein believed Time Cube was correct" is no worse to source to an SPS than "Einstein told me he believed Time Cube was correct". Lagrange613 18:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Feightner is 92 years old and probably won't be self-publishing by any literal interpretation of the phrase. What options does a WWII veteran have? It seemed reasonable to me that he would give his memorabilia to a web site specializing in military history that could make the material available to all and still attribute Feightner as the original source. To me, such actions meet the intent of WP:ABOUTSELF. But even if one interprets the Wiiki policy in other ways, the material I wanted to use as a reliable source of Feightner's naval commands comes from the US Navy. Isn't the US Navy the reliable source in this case rather than the web site that happens to host the photos? Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unless Feightner publishes navsource.org, it's not self-published by him. Yes, DANFS is reliable. Sorry, I think I mixed up [73] and [74]. Lagrange613 18:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF says nothing about computer skills. That is why I disagree with the statements you made:
- "Unless Feightner publishes navsource.org, it's not self-published by him"
- "Unless Feightner is the webmaster, he is not publishing."
My assertion is that the material Feightner provided about himself to navsource.org should be considered reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF. I thought your objection was based on Feightner not being the webmaster or not entering the material as one might do on Facebook. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- My question was rhetorical. My point was that WP:ABOUTSELF isn't about the technical details of how information is published; it's about who published it. In this case navsource.org, not Feightner, is publishing the information. Navsource.org is being used as a source of information about Feightner, not about itself, so WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply here. Lagrange613 04:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- My point is that WP:ABOUTSELF is also about the source of the information, not just who publishes it. For example, Nancy Pelosi's Faceback page is a reliable source of information about Nancy Pelosi even if a person on her staff typed in the material she wants to appear on the site. In Feightner's case, he doesn't have a staff or a personal web page, so he provided material to navsource.org who typed in the material he wanted to appear. To me, both approaches meet the intent and wording of WP:ABOUTSELF which states, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used" (emphasis mine). Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- But what is the source of the claim that Feightner provided the information? And how can we be sure that navsource.org doesn't include its own commentary or spin? Lagrange613 17:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- The source of the claim that Feightner provided the information was included with the material itself (i.e. "Photos from the collections of ... RADM E. L. Feightner…"). WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't require any validation of the questionable source other than the five criteria (e.g. #4, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"). But the policy also places limits on such sources (e.g. #5, "the article is not based primarily on such sources"). Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- It only says the photos are from Feightner. You're using navsource.org to support assertions about the activities of his ship. Even if that were valid navsource.org is only one of several self-published sources on which the article relies. For example, source [1] in the current version is the self-published site AcePilots, which by my reckoning makes no claim to just be publishing Feightner's material. And it's cited 15 times to navsource.org's one. The self-published problem is pervasive in this article and must be addressed for this nom to have any hope. Lagrange613 16:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- The photos show Feightner becoming captain of the ship and commanding her though activities during a deployment, and I still believe this meets the criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF. I realize there are other sources that need to be fixed, but I first wanted to understand what WP:ABOUTSELF includes and excludes. To me, the policy seems fairly broad in scope, but I can see you do not agree. I will try to find non-self published sources and fix the other items in the article you mentioned. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- It only says the photos are from Feightner. You're using navsource.org to support assertions about the activities of his ship. Even if that were valid navsource.org is only one of several self-published sources on which the article relies. For example, source [1] in the current version is the self-published site AcePilots, which by my reckoning makes no claim to just be publishing Feightner's material. And it's cited 15 times to navsource.org's one. The self-published problem is pervasive in this article and must be addressed for this nom to have any hope. Lagrange613 16:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- The source of the claim that Feightner provided the information was included with the material itself (i.e. "Photos from the collections of ... RADM E. L. Feightner…"). WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't require any validation of the questionable source other than the five criteria (e.g. #4, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"). But the policy also places limits on such sources (e.g. #5, "the article is not based primarily on such sources"). Skeet Shooter (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- But what is the source of the claim that Feightner provided the information? And how can we be sure that navsource.org doesn't include its own commentary or spin? Lagrange613 17:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- My point is that WP:ABOUTSELF is also about the source of the information, not just who publishes it. For example, Nancy Pelosi's Faceback page is a reliable source of information about Nancy Pelosi even if a person on her staff typed in the material she wants to appear on the site. In Feightner's case, he doesn't have a staff or a personal web page, so he provided material to navsource.org who typed in the material he wanted to appear. To me, both approaches meet the intent and wording of WP:ABOUTSELF which states, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used" (emphasis mine). Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Time to close this after 6 weeks eh? PumpkinSky talk 14:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
