Talk:Ron Littlefield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
WikiProject Tennessee (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Ron Littlefield is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Project Articles][Project Page][Project Talk][Assessment][Template Usage]
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

History of edits related to this article[edit]

Flowanda, please try to be more careful with your edits. Old Money New South is not a self-published book, which is explained on the book's website. Also, if you're going to remove a citation, there may be reason to consider removing the content which required the citation. It's best to bring it up on the article's talk page. Qmax 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Qmax, thanks for the welcome and comments. Although I may be new to wikipedia, I consider myself a careful editor who learns and follows style guidelines, so I made edits only after reviewing the appropriate guidelines and doing research in and outside wikipedia.

As you know, the book's website alone is not independent verification of its own authenticity, and the only publisher listed/uncovered with additional research is the author and an organization listed in his name. Regardless, I removed the link because there was no connection between the book and this article; the link you added back contains content with no reference to this article or person.

The other link was removed because it also did not meet the external link guideliness that limit links to only those blogs/personal websites considered authoritative. Although listed as a "collection of essays criticial of the mayor", the web page consisted of entries and comments structured in a blog format by date using blogging software on a website of blogs that included "blogs" in its URL. The blog's writer is unidentified. Whether a blog or personal page, this website doesn't meet the wiki external link guidelines, so I removed the link, noting why in my edits.

I can post all the references I used for these edits, of course, or discuss the edits I've made elsewhere based on wiki sources I used as reference.Flowanda 03:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

More history[edit]

Ron Littlefield edits Would you review a page you made edits to a few weeks ago? I'd like feedback on Ron_Littlefield before I post info to the article's talk page as requested by Qmax on my talk page. My understanding of 3RR was that unsourced, unreliable info could be immediately removed without discussion, so I feel a bit hesitant about making edits without clarity that the two external websites on this page do not meet the wp:el guidelines. The link to "worst mayor ever" has been removed twice, but has been added back in and the description changed to “a collection of essays” by an editor who is part owner of the company that hosts this blog and who has referenced the blog several times on his own personal blog. The external book link makes no connection to the article’s subject and violates [WP:EL] policies as a self-published book WP:SPS. The book’s publisher is a non-profit registered by the author and there are no independent academic reviews, only references listed on the editor’s company blogs and on wikipedia articles. I do live in Chattanooga and am a writer, but I have no bias or conflict of interest per WP:COIother than finding the blog funny at times and re-worded descriptions red flags. Thanks. Flowanda 02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely against having the 'Worst Mayor Ever' essays; links to blogs are generally a bad idea under the external link guidelines, and linking to your own blog is even worse. As for the book, I'm not sure about that. I found the same info on the government web site here, so it sounds pretty plausible to me. By the way, I think immediate removal of unsourced info can only be done if the material is negative; for example, "Ron Littlefield has been convicted of prostitution" would be eligible, but "Ron Littlefield is the president of XYZ Company" wouldn't. Veinor (talk to me) 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and comments. However, I couldn't find the book referenced anywhere on the page or website you mentioned, and a search doesn't bring up anything similar. Am I missing something that's related and could add relevance to this external link? Flowanda 05:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing external link to non-notable anonymous blog[edit]

An external link to a non-notable, anonymous blog has been removed per Wikipedia policy related to biographies of living persons. The policy is clear: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Content that does not meet policy related to neutrality, verifiability or no original research are to be "removed immediately without discussion." If the link has been re-added, then check the article history for a list of editors and their edits to this article. Flowanda | Talk 04:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Worst Mayor Ever was written about in the Times Free Press, so that makes it very notable [1], and it's not a blog Qmax 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Qmax, have you read the specific, stringent requirments for sourcing BLPs?
“Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.Material about living persons available solely in questionable or dubious sources should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links.”
The article you mention did nothing to verify authority or notability. A quote: “Kevin West, news director of talk radio station WGOW-FM 102.3, said he checks the site from time to time for a few chuckles, though he doesn't give it much credence. ‘I do read it, but it's not something I read for news value,’ he said. ‘He doesn't cite sources, and nobody can verify the things he says.’"
Nobody with any authority has been quoted as knowing and verifying the author’s claims of insider knowledge and facts, nor is anyone ever quoted directly. The blog/website has never been quoted in any other news articles.
The author himself expresses worry about what seems to be legal action: This statement on May 31, 2007 concerns you: “I don't for a second worry about Josiah giving me up, but I haven't revealed myself to him so that he doesn't put his business at risk, if Ron were to get vindictive.”
This is an example of what he’s writing. From July 13, 2007, “Insiders from the Littlefield campaign have come out of the woodwork lately with all kinds of accusations, all of which I'd love to share, but so far I don't have the kind of confirmation that I'm comfortable with. Which may seem ridiculous from a blog like this one, but at my end I know what I write is solid based on my relationship with my sources. These new relationships don't meet that baseline.” But then adds “Nevertheless, these former Littlefielders all say that….” followed by the accusations, which I won’t add here.
And finally, Blades calls himself a blogger.
Editors can decide what they want to do with this link; I have no preference other than noting the issues with WP:V and its history and filing a notice. Flowanda | Talk 08:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous gossip blogs are precisely what Wikipedia does *not* link to. FCYTravis 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I"m not arguing that the blog should be used as a source in any way, I'm arguing that it's a "related link" to the articles content in question because independent news sources have written about the blog, and it doesn't matter if people quoted in the articles say the blog isn't important, it's notable because there has been independent sources about it, by definition. So, if blogs are absolutely not to be linked to as a "related link" even when they have independent news stories written about them in multiple independent publications, then I can understand leaving the link out. But if not, then I can see leaving it in. Qmax 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, that asks not to link to: " blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)