Talk:Joseph Balmer

New page review
I left the following comment on the initial editor's talk page:

This article suffers from two issues. First, it is not written in a neutral manner--it is fawning over the subject in a way that would not even be justified if we had several top-quality sources to cite that treated him with the same level of reverence. This brings us to the second issue, which is the sources. I am very skeptical of the reliability of "The English Westerners' Society – Custer Association of Great Britain". Other sources are clearly primary, such as Balmer's correspondence in the Stanley Vestal papers and his manuscripts. Many of the remaining sources are inaccessible to me at this time; this does not mean that they are unreliable or inadmissible, but given the quality concerns that I have already raised, I am less than confident that these are sufficiently reliable.

I don't doubt that Balmer was a notable figure, but I think that the article could benefit from stronger sources, and that we may be missing important perspectives (e.g. from 21st century anthropologists and historians, or from Native American publications). I am highly doubtful that we should be referring to someone who never set foot onto the American content or ever personally encountered a Native American as a legendary expert on the subject in Wikipedia's voice.

Finally, given the neutrality issues noted above and because you have noted that you have engaged in correspondence with Josef J. Balmer (whom I'm assuming is associated with Balmer's estate?) in the article citations, please disclose any conflict of interest that you may have with the subject.

signed,Rosguill talk 03:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill thank you for your comments, yet I am still at a loss on account of the meaning of "neutrality issues". As a historian it is all but naturally to proceed to search out, identify & locate any kin of the subject that might be able to share biographical details such as birth date/place, death date/place, education and any contributing factors that proved relevant. According to the Swiss civil registration archives Balmer had two children, a son and a daughter and I was able to locate the son who by way of correspondence provided detailed information. I have not had the means to personally meet and/or interview Balmer's son for he lives in Switzerland and I am based in California. I have proceeded in the same fashion of gathering data in the example when I put together the article on photographer Frank Bennett Fiske by reaching out to the subject's descendants for biographical details. If you can explain to me what else is needed to overcome this concern it would be appreciated.

In the Mari Sandoz archives at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln NE is another collection of a large number of exchanges between Balmer and the former dating from 1948 to 1962 that gives insights into his expertise and knowledge on the subject. Joseph Balmer is essentially unknown in his native Switzerland as he concentrated his activities and exchanges with parties in the United States and Britain. Balmer made his vast collection of correspondence with noted anthropologist and author George E. Hyde on the subject of the Sioux Indians available to British author Kingsley M. Bray for his biographic work "Crazy Horse: a Lakota Life" (2006 University of Oklahoma Press) that would place his influence within a 21st century publication. Given that Balmer has been dead for 14 years and other than what is preserved at the University Library of Oklahoma (Stanley Vestal papers) and University Library of Nebraska (Mari Sandoz papers) not much more can be documented as source material.

Given all that, if it is deemed not worthy enough to have a wikipedia article on Joseph Balmer I would suggest that it be taken down and be done with it. Thank you for your input and suggestions. Von Bern (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)vonBern
 * , thanks for responding to this. Regarding the first issue, you're right that reaching out to relatives of the subject would be a natural step if you were trying to conduct research. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research; while primary sources may be used for supplementary information, the main content and presentation of the article should rely on secondary and/or tertiary sources (with secondary sources being preferred for citations). We should not be interpreting primary sources ourselves.


 * From the acknowledgements section of Crazy Horse and the correspondence, I actually do think that WP:NACADEMIC is met, and I'm not advocating deletion of the article. However, I don't think that the tone of the article is borne out by what little secondary coverage is available, and that's the crux of my concerns about neutrality. The article, as written, presents Balmer as a giant of his field, describing his correspondence with luminaries, describing his collection as impressive, and describing his expertise as legendary in Wikipedia's voice. In order for coverage like that to be DUE, I would expect to see a whole pile of biographies overflowing with praises, Albert Einstein-level treatment. In the absence of such sources, I think that it would be more appropriate for the article to briefly describe the breadth of his life and work, but without quite so many positive adjectives. signed,Rosguill talk 21:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)