Talk:Ryan Doyle

Would a kind passerby mind reviewing this article closely for quality and correctness? This is my first article from scratch and I'd like to know if I'm doing anything wrong before continuing or heavily editing similar articles. In particular, has the amount of objectivity in my references created a solid argument for notability? I think parkour.com, Marvel, and IMDb(?) create a good base. The others are a bit more subjective, but I'm assuming, still usable. E.g. Ryan is a founder of WFPF, but this is much more removed than, say, his personal website or YouTube page, which I've not referenced. (Are fully personal websites completely off the chart, or can they be lightly referenced, for instance, for biography information not covered elsewhere?) And while he's heavily involved with Red Bull, they seem a very reputable and established entity, affecting athletic culture and community rather than merely a product manufacturer. Can I assume this is an appropriate second-party(?) source? Thanks for your help! Squish7 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:RS. Forget IMDb - it's user supplied. Also, forget profiles on related sites - usually user supplied too. I'd also say keep away from Red Bull and any other sponsor or promoter or organiser. They are not reliable in that they won't say anything against the subject. (There may be nothing bad or indifferent to say - but we still don't trust them.) Avoid all blogs, forums and editable things (including us and other wikis). No to MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, AboutUs and LinkedIn (and similar). RS will tell you about independent reliable sources. The ones you cite may all be truthful, but I would not rely on them. Good luck... Peridon (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just not getting this. I'm not trying to bicker uselessly or waste your time; I'm just plain baffled. I've scanned through relevant help files a hundred times, asked many questions and carefully absorbed the answers, and all I see is vehement disharmony between the spirit of objectivity, and the red tape. Discarding all split-hair whining on my part (like that IMDb seems perfectly objective, albeit user-generated) and tabling petty particulars, I just don't get the BIG stuff. All the reasons for the alllll the particular rules and policies rest on the foundation of presenting accurate, unbiased, balanced information. Disallowing each and every smigen of material nontrivially connected to the subject matter, even under a unanimous consensus of nonprofit editors (writing more about what they're interested in than what they detest), wipes out nearly every source of information on a topic, place, person, thing, or idea, because people connected to a topic are the people have information.

A person knows their childhood history; their company knows their work schedule and project status; their college knows their GPA; their sober friends remember their ski ball score got when too drunk to remember. A truly unbiased newspaper (if it were even possible for one to exist, given reporters are all at least tainted by the motivation to publish interesting information, often further: to promote sales), can't audit diaries and birth certificates and social security files and folders to make a public figure and their organization haven't committed global identity fraud. Most for-profit publications deal with what they like and know about; they're interested in their subject material; they shake hands to say hello at an interview, they smile; they don't torture and interrogate, and they're not androids that speak in monotone completely removed from the human condition. Even objective film critics like the medium of film more than they detest it, showing bias.

Every in-depth storyteller takes a biased point of view. They convey it by who, what, where, when, why, and how they interview. Even Wikipedia can create point of view by including some information, and not other information, e.g. that which people who don't edit things like Wikipedia might contribute. An editor who knows something negative about an individual or topic, but does not include it because they enjoy dealing with their topic, is not objectively presenting information, therby negating the credibility of every editor not mechanically obsessed with transposing all binary and molecular information, everywhere, into a searchable, on-line format. It would take an omnicient entity to know all information everywhere and present it in equal portions. Even then, if God were biased, who would know?

Red Bull (and any e.g. akin), intrinsically, has no motive to lie about whether an athletic invent existed, or what a sponsored athlete's date of birth is. Even supposing they had such a motive, and a history of moderate fraud, why wouldn't an encyclopedia editor--emphatically charged with collecting as much information as possible for the single purpose of objective verifiability--not be able to filter, sift, weigh, and balance. E.g., "Joe has a dog named Fido, and is the nicest person in the history of humanity." The latter phrase is intrinsically prone to bias, but the former--especially if the reporting entity has never lied about whether someone has a dog--is not.

By this logic, no NFL or NBA stat reported by anyone but a clique of nuns can be trusted, because throwing games could generate revenue. Even a nun has a motive to fake her religion, because then she could get away with posting erroneous baseball stats, for who would accuse her? Red Bull could fund the tereforming of a nearby planet, and no news could be reported on WP if they continued to sell an energy drink. This is just paranoid. My stub article is balanced. If there's a conspiracy among Red Bull, MTV, Marvel, WFPF, IMDb, and every online source of information on parkour, to fabricate the existence of Ryan Doyle, the next dozen sources I find could easily be in on the conspiracy, too... Squish7 (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Honestly, it doesn't sound like you've been able to review the link to guidelines pertaining reliable sources yet. Peridon has offered some valuable advice above, while Chzz has offered guidance on your talk page. Nobody can help you "get it" anymore than providing links that present indepth information about what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. At this point, it's really up to you to make the most of every opportunity to learn the policies and guidelines established by the community, by reading the linked information offered. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you all for all your help. If you'd allow me a last inquiry, though. What kind of time frame do I have to ensure the article is up to par? Honestly, my question was not about what reliability is all about. I already know basically everything you've told me. I've talked about it because you brought it all up. I already knew that IMDb, YouTube, Myspace, personal pages, etc., etc., were on the taboo list, and the reasons behind this. For example, my question mark after IMDb was meant to signify "does the reference create any tentative support in combination with others, given it's a generally taboo source". In the context of the paragraph, I honestly think this is the appropriate interpretation, even if I should have closely clarified. I really think attention to detail would have prevented going into what I already basically knew.

The only question I originally asked was whether my particular set of sources have created a good base for the existence for the article. Should I or should I not have created this page given the more reliable sources I've found? I still have very little idea whether the combination of the quality of the 10 sources I've selected warrants a proper short article, or at least an appropriate draft. I'm sorry if you've misunderstood, but I really think my prose was precise. No, I should not have gone into a tangent of my opinion when you changed the subject; I should have further clarified my question, but I'm ADHD and felt the urge to respond to things I disagree with (the level of strictness, which I don't understand, and has nothing to do with all the basics I already knew about after studying the help files and policies closely, hence my refraining from using up your time asking out of respect). I asked for a review of the article, whether I did a good job adhering to the rules. A proper response might have been, "most of your sources are appropriate, except IMDb, which should not be used whatsoever", tweaking what the help articles say, which are not infinitely detailed for every single scenario. I would still very much appreciate your help in this matter.

In short, what do you think of the quality of this stub artictle? For instance, you might say "half your sources seem reliable, it needs work, but it's a good beginning and establishes notoriety", or, "you should not have created this page if this is all you have". Thank you for your help. I apologize for any misuse of time for which I'm to blame. Squish7 (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will say that it's been up for three days, someone's done a copyed, and no-one's tagged it for anything yet. If our team of patrollers haven't objected to it yet, there can't be much wrong with it. They're usually there within five minutes. I would advise getting a bit of outside coverage to be safe - press reports or such. One or two would stop a refimprove tag - which in itself isn't a case for total despair. They can be there for months or years. No need to apologise for anything. You needed to know, we're here to try to help (as well as to delete things...). One thing I will ask is that you don't use 'notoriety' where 'notability' is the word (or 'fame'). Notoriety can mean fame, but only in the cases of people like Al Capone, Pol Pot or (locally) certain sockpuppeteers and persistent vandals. It seems to be a leakage from hiphop or rap, where you apparently have to be seen as notorious even though you come from from a middle class household and have never even been told off by a cop for riding your bike without lights. Peridon (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Abyss between taboos and spirit of WP:RS

This is for Peridon or anyone to comment on... I appreciate everyone's help so far with my first article, but there's still a huge abyss between what a lot of people have told me directly, and what I feel the spirit and wording of WP:RS cover. Particularly I've been struggling with the vehemency of this quote, being the epitome of a prevalent attitude:

Forget IMDb - it's user supplied. Also, forget profiles on related sites - usually user supplied too. I'd also say keep away from Red Bull and any other sponsor or promoter or organiser. They are not reliable in that they won't say anything against the subject. (There may be nothing bad or indifferent to say - but we still don't trust them.) Avoid all blogs, forums and editable things (including us and other wikis). No to MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, AboutUs and LinkedIn (and similar).

Firstly, WP:RS directly states: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. Does this not declare Ryan's personal webpage and YouTube videos definitively allowable sources for all sorts of information, i.e. biography, childhood, tastes, philosophies, etc.? And, does this not by definition welcome event dates and statistics from Red Bull (i.e. NFL / NBA stats), Ryan's status in Red Bull community, etc?...

Second, WP:RS states that internal document context is 1/3 of the weight of reliability. In combination with that editors are generally dynamic people capable of putting together a complex scenario (including analysis of strictly verifiable third-party sources and their relation to potentially questionable sources), can't the 1/3 in theory torpedo potential unreliability in certain scenarios? Especially if others agree and meet the same conclusion?

The stub I wrote has been up for over a week, from which I induce general tacit approval of my methods. I wrote it intuitively, and it feels like I've been jumping through hoops to technically quantify and justify my methods. I want to continue intuitively but this gap between all your rules and what I feel to be correct (backed by the continued existence of the article) is abysmal. It's not about the past; it's about that I don't want to write an 80-page article and be told that my methods weren't really appropriate to begin with. From what you say, my first 3 sources, used for 8 different references, are taboo. Yet I feel they're very verifiable, and that my judgement in using them as a collective with all the sources is quite kosher, and, that the spirit and wording of the WP:RS backs that initial intuition up. However, this is totally opposite your general statements.

There's an absolute wealth of Ryan Doyle information on YouTube, his sites, redbull.com, objective parkour sites that link to these things (but only a scant handful, which I feel establishes the rest as credible and not fraud), etc., etc... He uploads a lot of external material, e.g. a Red Bull commerical, which I saw "air" on YouTube as an official advertisement (i.e. the YouTube equivalent of TV commercials). Do I really need to go locate an independent cable television broadcaster of the commercial, or locate a database of official YouTube advertisement videos, to confirm it wasn't fabricated, and be able to take the tone of it being an official Red Bull advertisement, not a personal video that Doyle fabricated and uploaded to his site?

That is the scenario with at least half of all these videos, documentaries, interviews, event footage, etc. etc. etc. etc.... Can I really not say "Ryan Doyle went to Mardin, Turkey", even though he's walking around a video that's apparently Mardin, Turkey, because it was a "personal YouTube video"? These types of things are not lightly, but completely forbidden, by these general taboos multiple admins have listed. I really want to continue with this article, but uber-reliable third-party sources barely cover the material. I appreciate assurance that the article is likely well-written due to its non-removal, but I need something more than an 85% chance someone wont't say, "Well you really shouldn't have been using XYZ to begin with, and your extension solidifies its inappropriateness, warranting removal."

Thanks. Squish7 (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it's up and running. That's the main hurdle passed. The list of no-go links I gave was for establishing notability. That seems to have passed the eagle eyes of the patrollers. You can add references to those places (but preferably avoid the ones that upset the bots). The commercial? You can link to it (bot permitting...), but a reference showing that it was really used would help too. Cindamuse has been doing things to your refs. She's a well-respected editor. You could ask her why she's done what she's done, and which things she considers total no-go. I'm a bit worn out at the moment - I'll look at what you say again. I will say two things, though. Try to keep talk short, and relax. Easier said than done. Try. Peridon (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)