User talk:Jonvanv/Jonathan Van Voorhees

Trying to clean this up and ensure neutral point of view, notability, and reliable sources are sufficient for move to main article space. Any comments would be appreciated. Jonvanv (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you related to Jonathan Van Voorhees? Bejinhan Talk 05:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Jonathan Van Voorhees - trying to follow the guidelines - I think that there are sufficient reliable sources cited could probably use help on NPOV Jonvanv (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to note...

Writing about yourself is not accepted by us because of WP:COI.
Due to COI, you might write your article in a biased tone because you are writing about yourself.(WP:BIO and WP:AUTO)
There is no inline citations in the article making it unclear what is referenced and what isn't.
The article is too long and goes into too much detail.

Bejinhan Talk 06:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got tired of waiting for someone to write something about me in Wikipedia and it was my first attempt at writing an article. :) I put a lot of work into it, worked hard to remain objective, and it does cover contributions I have made in politics, film, and hair styling, all of which have been reported in mainstream newspapers and magazines. I think I have been even-handed in my reporting and have tried to stick to the facts, that is I have tried not to interject opinion, but this is why I need outside observers to review it. I appreciate your time in exchanging information with me.

There are a lot of discussions about COI and they seem to be split. Some people seem to think that autobiography is automatically COI others say that it just needs to be well sourced.

How do you do an inline citation?

Can you give me examples of too much detail please? Jonvanv (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed all the naked links in the text to very bare inline citations (with no attribution) but my time is very short and I won't be back for about ten hours so I am placing back the helpme. Hopefully someone will be along to explain more about how inline citations work and how to modify what I've done to provide better attribution such as converting the urls to titles and adding publisher information, dates, accessdates, and author where applicable, using cite web (as I've set them up; some need to be changed to cite book (whih have other fields such as isbns), cite journal or cite news where applicable, and also the Google books should use the shortened urls). For the moment, take a look at the template below. Gotta run.

Visual guide to inline citations

Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations
All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name="name"> followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />. In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code <references/> or, most commonly, the template, {{Reflist}} which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{Reflist\|colwidth=30em}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>`Citation text.`</ref><ref>`Citation text2.`</ref> Multiple<ref name="multiple">`Citation text3.`</ref> citation<ref name="multiple" /> use.<ref name="multiple" /> == References == {{Reflist}}	Two separate citations.^[1]^[2] Multiple^[3] citation^[3] use.^[3] References_________________ ^ Citation text. ^ Citation text2. ^ ^a ^b ^c Citation text3.
Templates that can be used between `<ref>...</ref>` tags to format references {{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also will leave the {{helpme}} tag up to attract more helpers, but there is good advice for someone in your situation, who wishes to write about himself and so has from Wikipedia's point of view a conflict of interest, at WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest and at User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you. If you haven't already, you should also read WP:Autobiography. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jon....what help are you looking for exactly? Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Shreveport, Columbia, and poetry sections may need more sources, as it seems like they rely on one source or that much of those sections are unsourced. However, good work with the inline citations. fetchcomms☛ 20:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to clean this up to meet wiki guidelines. Thanks to those of you who have helped already. I'm not in any rush to get this up but I do believe that there is enough substance to warrant an article ( Heck, Aren't we all legends in our own minds? ) But seriously, I'm starting to figure out how to do a citation by looking at what Fuhghettaboutit has done. I have read the autobiography section (which seems to mostly discourage this practice) and I will leave it up to the community as to whether or not this article offers enough to be noteworthy (perhaps there are sections within this article that are more noteworthy than the article as a whole) so I'm looking for some guidance as to how it all needs to be structured. Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome. Jonvanv (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take credit for the citations that was all Fuhghettaboutit's work. the Columbia Park thing is difficult because it was so long ago, it took me the past six months just to find the case-law online but I am still trying to get access to the Shreveport Times and Nashville Banner(now defunct)archives (which seem to have been outsourced) for references to the park protests and poetry groups. There was a bio the Times published that mentioned the Park bust and the Poetry Experimental Theater group, again a matter of finding it online. I probably have those in a scrapbook somewhere but I didn't think that would be sufficient evidence (would scanned copies posted to the web somewhere be OK?). Thanks again for all the help. Jonvanv (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll put the helpme back up and have a look at it later. You could also ask for Peer Review or file a Request for comment to generate more feedback. Cheers! Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 20:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was ready for peer review of RFC yet. I wanted to make sure that it was at least meeting the minimum standards before I posted to those. Thanks again to everyone for your help and input. Jonvanv (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an autobiography gives you an automatic coi. It also throws neutrality out the window, you might be trying to be neutral but it is against our human nature to write and expose our flaws and vices. For all I know there could be some hidden scandal that an uninformed person like myself might not know about you that should be included to make this an accurate and neutral biography. There is also the question of whether you meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements, with no offense intended the fact that you have to create this article yourself seems to indicate to me that you are not notable enough for Wikipedia. If you move this article to the mainspace there is a very high chance it will be deleted. I see that you have put a lot of effort into this article, may I suggest that you use your wide range of expertise ("He is a community organizer and politician ... celebrity hairstylist, make up artist, a writer, poet, screenwriter, producer, director, web site developer, and administrator, painter (oils, acrylics, watercolors), graphic artist,") to help improve Wikipedia coverage of those particular areas and wait for someone else to create an article about you. I understand that you don't want to abandon an article that you have put a significant amount of work into but if moved into the mainspace chances are that it will be deleted anyway making all your work a waste of time. --Chris 09:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. I would say that it is against the nature of someone who is unaccustomed to revealing their flaws and vices to be able to do so, but that does not mean that it is difficult for people who have done it on a more frequent basis. This reveals more about your worldview than about human nature. You assume that most people have something to hide and would therefore be dishonest, either intentionally or unintentionally, to avoid revealing the truth. There are however people who strive to continually reveal the truth regardless of the consequences to themselves.

I also disagree with your conclusion that if a person were notable that someone else would have already written about them. This is really more about what you define as notable. It also does not take into consideration the passage of time, the ever changing focus of the media, and the interests of the public at large.

In example, Alexander Bell was long thought to be the inventor of the telephone, and he was the first to obtain a patent. However it was many years before anyone heard the name Elisha Gray who also invented a telephone but didn't make it to the patent office in time to qualify as the first person to invent a telephone. For the longest time people didn't care if anyone else had invented a telephone and Gray was ignored.

A more personal example would be the article I wrote about Victor Dada. To a large segment of the world Victor Dada remains unknown, but to a certain segment of society in Dallas, Texas they were legendary. They created memorable performance art for over a decade, opened a club where they could stage their performances, and sparked the Dallas phenomenon of the Deep Ellum revival, but it is unlikely that more than a few people outside of Dallas have ever heard of them. Does the fact they they were not well known outside of Dallas make the unnoteworthy? I don't think so, their impact within the city was quite well documented by various media locally, and there are many such examples throughout Wikipedia.

IMHO notability can just denote uniqueness or it may also apply to a body of works over a period of time, it doesn't mean world famous. I believe this is pretty much in line with the way Wikipedia uses the term also, that is if I understand the articles on notability correctly.

Then there is the problem with the relative newness of Wikipedia and the internet itself. I feel relatively sure that there are literally thousands of notable people and events that will go un-noted for years to come because they happened before the advent of the internet and, as yet, have not been archived and made available online. I, along with many others, have a long list of accomplishments in a variety of areas that have been written about by many people over the course of my life. As a general rule I didn't undertake the deeds so that I would be written about. It just so happened that an editor or reporter thought the things I was doing were interesting enough to warrant attention. The number of articles would seem to indicate that there is some notability even if that notability were just for managing to get written about. :)

As I have said I am in no hurry to move the article into the main article space. I am just trying to clean it up as much as possible while I continue to add references and sources to support the case of notability according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you for your comments, and I wish you the best of luck in all your endeavors.

Jonvanv (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have formatted two references as examples for you. It works like this. Anyplace you want a citation in the text, you place the reference text between ref tags: <ref>text of reference</ref>. Where you place this will show in read mode as a footnote and the text of the reference appears in the references section. We often use citatio templates to help with formatting the references. For a web source, for example, we might use {{cite web}}. You place it in between the ref tags and add parameters with information; typically the title, URL, date, publisher, author's name if applicable, and date you accessed the source. As an example for you I have formatted two references, one using {{cite web}}, and one using {{cite journal}}. Please see the diffs here and here. There are a lot of problems with the article from a neutral point of view standpoint, and the references have problems (such as citing yourself). But if you want to get this into a shape, you need to provide references with attribution. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Citation text.

[2] Citation text2.

[multiple-3] Citation text3.

[1]

[2]

[3]