Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)

Declaration

Following a reply of mine at the Teahouse some time ago, I have offered to assist an editor who is concerned about a WP:COI in editing this article directly (see also thread immediately above this one). He has sent me an off-wiki set of suggestions for minor alterations and appropriate sources or concerns over any statements already in the article (nine relatively minor suggestions in total). This is just to say that I will slowly work through that list, and treat them as if they were an edit request. If I find anything contentious, I undertake to bring it to this talk page for discussion and agreement. I have no other connection with this editor, save for a general interest in Antarctica. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A request from Tim Foley

This discussion has been closed by OhanaUnited. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed by OhanaUnited. Please do not modify it.
Editors working on this topic may want to be aware that I have just been asked[1] by @Timfoley50 to incorporate assertions from his book into this article. I declined. See the discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Tom_Crean_Explorer (permalink) My response[2] is long, but in summary i have told Tim that while I understand his enthusiasm, he has been way too pushy for way too long. WP:NOTHERE beckons. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC) I note in Timfoley50's message on BrownHairedGirl's usertalk page that the main impetus for change (or proxy editing? or PP removal? or some other action that I am not following) is that (in Timfoley50's view) the current version of "the article contains a number of errors". When Timfoley50 raised this first in 2018, when prompted for more detail, the "errors" seemed to amount to (minor?) variances between sources. For example a potential variation in number of siblings (varying by source). Or the day of week on which something happened in Dec 1916 (again minor variances by source). I'm not sure if it is the same text that is in question, but I personally struggle with the suggestion that Timfoley50's research should "trump" other sources. In any article, where otherwise reliable and verifiable sources vary slightly, we either express both. For example: "depending on the source used, Crean was one of either ten or eleven siblings}}). Or we reword to account for both: "On 15" In December 1916, he was promoted}}". The suggestion that one source (ANY source) should be given primacy over other ALL OTHER sources is questionable. At the very least, the proposing editor should explain what issues are believed to exist. And we can then consider how to handle each. Full blown dismissal of other/prior/reliable/verifiable sources is unlikely to be an appropriate solution.... Guliolopez (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC) That seems like a fair summary, @Guliolopez. I would also add that there is the question of what WP:WEIGHT to add to a new secondary work. If there are reviews commending the scholarly integrity of the new source, or if it is positively cited, then that adds to the weight. However, when the author comes here to say that they are promoting the man, then that significantly diminishes the weight. A hagiography is not a good source for contested points of fact. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC) I do think that when conversations on here resort to personal affronts, the identity of any accuser should be verifiable. I'm quite open about my own and have no reason to hide behind any username, so in that regard, are you BrownHairedGirl, prepared to openly state under your real name that my book is a hagiography that should be discounted of the sources within because of that belief? Timfoley50 (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC) And since our last exchange in 2018, editors informed me that a self-published account could not be considered as a credible source in order to implement changes. To suggest that my work on Crean, should 'trump' other sources appears to be an accusation of your own making and is untrue. Yes, among the falsehoods was that Crean was one of ten when he was one of eleven siblings and I have the evidence or is evidence not considered when compiling Wiki articles? On what basis would you suggest that it be reworded to account for both unless you have evidence to confirm he was one of ten siblings? Do you? Tou say 'The suggestion that one source (ANY source) should be given primacy over other ALL OTHER sources is questionable' You make it read like I requested this. Where do you guys get off on throwing false accusations about? I want the article for Tom Crean to be as accurate as it possibly can be and for it to tell the fullest picture of his life as it is able ti regardless of the origin of valid sources that are used to compile it. Timfoley50 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Tim, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That sets out the principles which editors apply in using sources. In a nutshell, secondary sources are not all equal. Also consider the satirical essay WP:THETRUTH. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Hi Timfoley50. I only mentioned the "siblings" concern because, absent any explanation/expansion on what errors actually remain, I could only refer to the "errors" that you mentioned back in 2018. I am not proposing further changes to that text. Not least as the number of siblings was already updated (to reflect the DIB entry) back in 2021. As per my previous notes, unless you can expand on what errors you believe remain, it is unclear what action you are proposing that other editors take/make/support/comment-upon.... Guliolopez (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC) And in response to your damning summary of my request I want to clarify that I wish to incorporate alterations to the article based on researching Tom Crean's life and career that I has been ongoing since 2017. I'm more than happy to provide any editor the sources that I presented to the Royal Irish Academy in order to implement those changes. You tacky assumption that I am merely promoting a book is made without foundation. Ironically, the fact is that if you had written and researched his life and all your sources had been validated, I'd be right here doing the same - promoting the man. Timfoley50 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Tim, please note that one of Wikipedia's core policies is WP:Neutrality. I recommend that you read it carefully. If you are as you say here promoting the man, then you are not here to build an encyclopedia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Aha!! So, a lack of passion for the subject you write about is what makes for a good Wikipedia editor? As, does a lack of respect in the case of certain editors it seems. Timfoley50 (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Source discussion

• (Discussion from User talk:Timfoley50) Out of interest BrownHairedGirl, which sources on this page do you consider "scholarly" and not "popular and accessible"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is ANI. There are no sources on this page.

  If you want to discuss the sources on an article, use the article's talk page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl Look again what page this is? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, sorry. My mistake.

  Right page, but if someone wants a general source review, open a thread on that.

  This thread is about the 5-year campaign by an author to push his on book. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  As you wish, BrownHairedGirl. Shall we resume? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Fire away. I won't be participating.

  My only interest here has been the disruption caused by the 5-year campaign of promotional efforts by one author, after he asked me on Saturday to assist his campaign.

  Along the way I have noted how that book does not appear to be regarded by its publishers as a scholarly work ... but that does not mean that I want wider involvement in the article.

  I also want no further dealings with AirshipJungleman29. Please do not ping me again.

  If other editors believe that this thread looks like a genuine source discussion rathe than point-scoring, they may decide to participate. That is their choice. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice. Time to rewrite an article, methinks. So to summarise, the article relies predominantly on webpages, three memoirs from a century ago (Shackleton, Huxley and Cherry-Garrard), and a variety of popular sources. Hopefully, I can reorganise them in such a way that the article doesn't have to go to FAR. Anybody think this is a waste of time? I'll leave this question up for a week, in case anyone does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Request to begin discussions on changes/additions

For a number of years now, I’ve been attempting to bring about changes to this article as can be testified by the discussions on this talk page. On occasion, a strong passion to see alterations take place, got under the skin of a few others here and in hindsight, I get that - Rome wasn’t built in a day. Some sceptics saw my requests as being self-serving, after all, I’d written a biography about Tom Crean and I would stand to benefit from the changes if they were implemented. From the outset I had declared a conflict of interests but, try as I might to convey that my motives were entirely unselfish, they were still viewed on with suspicion by some and so I walked away for a period.

My biography of Crean, which I published in 2018, was a self-published version yet I discovered a host of new information during my research and I became aware that a number of things that populated the Wiki article for Tom Crean, were incorrect.

To try and get a better understanding of how alterations could possibly take place, I contacted the administrator of Wikimedia Ireland, via Twitter. At this time I was aware of the Wikipedia policy that rendered self-published books of low value when it came to sources used in evidence to provide integrity to a Wiki article. Her suggestion was to approach the Royal Irish Academy and attempt changes via the Dictionary of Irish Biography. I submitted all of my research to RIA and, after examination, changes to the DIB entry for Crean were implemented.

Wikipedia picked up on a number of the alterations and because they couldn’t be attributed to my research for a self-published book, they were instead attributed to DIB.

Any barrier to referencing my book in the Wikipedia page appeared to have been removed when, in May 2023, my biography of Crean was published by Merrion Press, an imprint of Irish Academic Press. However, an editor, who has since been blocked, took issue with this stating that books under the Merrion Press imprint did not qualify as being ‘scholarly’ The spat that followed led to an indefinite block being put on me by another editor who I believe is also now blocked.

My block has now been lifted and I'm extremely grateful for that. What I would like to propose to help kick start the process and, if there’s a consensus among editors here, is to provide a list of changes/additions for discussions to begin.

For fear of creating what could be considered a wall of text I’ll end things at this point and will wait to hear feedback from others in the first instance (Timfoley50 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC))

Hi. I will not reply with another "wall of text" so will simply ask that any proposed changes please be:

• clear, concise and specific. Not vague and expansive. (EG: "Section A currently says 'Crean did XYZ in 1913'. Propose changing to 'Crean did ABC in 1912)
• supported by verifiable, reliable and specific sources. Not vague and expansive (EG: "DIB entry expressly says 'blah blah ABC 1912'". Not "My research suggests [etc etc no specific ref/page/quote/whatever]".
• made only after discussion here. (Not least as, it seems, that some of the sources vary slightly in a few areas.)

(Otherwise the above is another 500 words about "my book" and "my biography" and "my publisher". And, as per my note of July 2023, it is still unclear what ACTUAL text changes are being proposed.) Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Added to what Guliolopez has written above, there's also, obviously, the option of citing the sources you found when doing your research, rather than exclusively relying on DIB. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to give a TL;DR version on the previous block on Timfoley50 (in case anyone can't follow along the events that unfolded). Timfoley50 followed proper protocol by declaring COI and sought comments on proposed changes on this very talk page. An editor, now banned by ArbCom for unable to work collaboratively with others, took Timfoley50 to ANI. That discussion was cut short when Timfoley50's usertalk page was revoked by an admin which turns out to be a sockpuppet of another ArbCom indef banned user. Timfoley50's block was reviewed by the community and it's decided to give a second chance since nobody would have known how the conversation would have turned out if it wasn't touched by two indef banned users who played a significant role in the outcome. I agree with Guliolopez's example. It will be very beneficial to have an itemized list of things that should be revised (as precise as possible). And sources should be diverse. If multiple sources conflict with each other, it is possible to cite both versions, e.g. After returning in November 1916, though some source say October 1916, instead of focusing on stating the "right" version. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but just for the record, BrownHairedGirl's ban was in no way related to this article or editor. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Well... it was more about BrownHairedGirl's general unwillingness to collaborate and battleground mentality. But we're going off-topic here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited Thank you for clarifying and before submitting proposed changes to the article, am I able to attribute the relevant changes to Crean - The Extraordinary Life of an Irish Hero in which all source references are detailed in the back matter? As I've mentioned before, I would be happy to provide all the evidence to an editor/s who, unlike myself, don't have a COI relating to the article. The only way I was able to have changes applied previously was via DIB who I submitted all my source evidence to and who were attributed in the notes for this article. Since that time the biography has been published. Timfoley50 (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

'AM' is the postnominal letters for the Albert Medal.

'AM' is the postnominal letters for the Albert Medal - which Tom Crean was a recipient of. - (161.29.255.157 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC))