Talk:Alexander Campbell (suspected Molly Maguire)

= Paranormal? =

Untitled
This article seems to suggest some kind of paranormal phenomenon -- probably due to a lack of clarity about what constitutes the 'reappearance' of the hand print. In any case, I think most people would agree that the article as it currently stands would never find its way into a print encyclopedia. 71.194.163.223 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it would, it's fine. If you don't like it, improve it.  Majorly  (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Note that the expert "debunking" now cited comes from a news story that was already used as a source in this article.  I certainly hope that a print encyclopedia would not present the claims of two self-published websites as true while ignoring expert analysis to the contrary in one of its other sources.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  19:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job, . The more interesting material (at least in terms of larger societal implications, etc) is at Molly Maguires.  I'm not sure whether there is anything we can or should do to point to that page more prominently. Kingdon 20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hand print persisting from June 21 1877 through July 01, 2007 (130 years and ten days)!?!
The July 01, 2007 Did you know section of the main page excerpts a passage from the Alexander Campbell (businessman), based on article Revision 140929825, (07:03, 27 June 2007). I think it is terrible that Wikipedia should be flat-out stating as true that this hand print has, without a doubt, persisted for a hundred thirty years. I am very glad that this revision is no longer current, and applaud the changes that were done, but I am sad that the outlandish version persisted for many hours.

I do think, given that the references supporting this contention are either ambivalent (ABC News) or not especially reliable, that the editors who had recommended this for DYK had the responsibility of, first, critically reading the references, then second, absolutely not extrapolating beyond what those references actually supported. It's not enough for an editor to exhort "Don't like it - fix it!" when the real damage was a public front-page exhibition that we don't take our own standards of verifiability very seriously.

Particular remarks
A careful read on the references marshaled to support the persisting hand story give rise to the following:
 * Reference 2: The Handprint The Cobra's Nose is a personal website of Sharon C. McGovern. A charming, quirky, site, and very entertaining, but fact checking? Editorial oversight?
 * Reference 3: The Ghostly Handprint (An Action News Special Report)This is a credible source, but a careful read does not show it in support of the flat-out statement Wikipedia had put on its front page. While being outwardly coy and titillating, I find in my reading of this reference that ABC studiously avoids endorsing anything about the the certainty of the handprint being a 130 year old artifact. Author Matt O'Donnell refers to 'legend' (whatever that is) or local residents (who are not inclined to debunk a cherished legend, and, giving this conflict of interest, can hardly be considered reliable resources). Mr. O'Donnell quotes Betty Lou McBride, one of the proprietors of the museum, "I would not swear on an oath that is was here for a hundred years. I haven't been standing here watching it." Like many writers about Campbell's celebrated hand print, Mr. O'Donnell eventually quotes possibly the one individual who has done a recent (now 12 year old) scientific study of the hand print: Dr. James Starrs, who in 1995, was invited by Judge John P. Lavelle to examine the hand print. Dr. Starrs is often quoted as the "scientific expert" who finds that there is "There's no logical explanation for it," a snippet that, without context, is often taken as an endorsement by Dr. Starrs that there is "something out of the ordinary" about the print. In contrast, Mr. O'Donnell's quotes of Dr. Starrs hardly reads like ringing endorsements for the persistent handprint theory, mainly because Mr. O'Donnell furnishes more context about Dr. Starrs's conclusions: "a true myth and a hoax to boot."
 * Other sources also indicate that Dr. Starr would never go so far has to suggest that the marks he observed in Cell 17 have persisted for 130 years, or originate with Mr. Campbell. Dr. Kathleen Ramsland, in her profile of Dr. Starr, quotes him on his impression of the handprint: "'According to the earliest reports of the placement by Campbell of his handprint on the wall of his jail cell and comparing that report to what I saw under visible light at the jail cell, the handprint was from a different hand when placed from that which I observed at the jail cell. Somebody didn't know one hand from the other." There were also no ridge marks to indicate that a hand had made the impression. To him, it seemed a mere tourist attraction, a "gulling" of the public. [ Concluding paraphrase is Ramsland ] "
 * Ms. Ramsland goes on to quote Dr. Starr concerning the legendary 'reappearance' of the hand after it had been painted over. "I was very limited in the scientific testing that the local judge [ Judge John P. Lavelle — Gosgood 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) ] would allow me to conduct," he added, "but it was crystal clear from the infrared photographs taken in the jail cell of the handprint that the handprint had not been painted over as it appeared from light in the visible spectrum. The photographs showed that the paint brush strokes had come up to the handprint from all sides but had not covered it."


 * Reference 4: paw-history Author Peter A. Weisman calls it a legendary hand print that has persisted to this day. Very well. According to the web page's tag line, Weisman wrote this in 1999 in his then capacity as an undergraduate student at Lehigh University, and he is not citing his sources. Does this constitute a reliable reference?
 * Reference 5: Welcome to Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania is unsigned, takes Dr. Starrs quotes out of context, and suffers from a conflict of interest, in that it is promoting Carbon County locations as tourists spots — a legitimate activity, but not an authoritative source on the persistent hand phenomenon.

I believe that Wikipedia articles ought to worded so as not to extrapolate beyond what rather weak and ambivalent references support. It would have made for a less titillating DYK snippet, but for a more reliable encyclopedia. The article can be fixed; but not the damage to Wikipedia's reliability, to which I think this article has led. — Gosgood 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the article already has been fixed (here). Perhaps it was the Did You Know entry which attracted editors to come in and fix it.  In any event, I see that you (Gosgood) have taken this to WP:ERRORS which seems like the right place (with respect to the Did You Know entry). Kingdon 04:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)