Talk:Malabar Farm State Park

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malabar Farm State Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.hihostels.com/affiliates/hiusa60081.php?country=US&city=a60081&AffiliateID=97060
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124045723/http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/parks/mohican.htm to http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/parks/mohican.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversy
Discuss the fire content here. Statements such as "The Ohio Inspector General investigated the barn fire after the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources chose to whitewash any ineptitude and culpability by Park management." appear to be an editor's opinion. Or is this from a published source? David notMD (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * recently inserted content about a 1994 barn fire, the cost of repairs, and the investigation of these events. This was sourced to . That would appear to be a primary source. It is apparently not available online, or at least I was not able to find an online version. It would presumably be a primary source and as such should be used only with care and for direct facts, not for implications or interpretations. I question whether the term "Whitewash" appears in the source, for example. The disputed passages directly implicate a living person, the Chief of Parks at the time of the fire, in improper action. This is not by any standard well-sourced, and so under WP:BLP I have removed it. I have done so the more readily because Malabar Facts reinstated the content after another editor reverted, rather than coming here as per WP:BRD. The content was also in an incorrect place withing the article, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In the same edits, inserted, and reinserted over a revert, content about an "investigation of spring house untreated water". This was sourced to  and to . These sources are apparently only available at Richland County(OH) Health Dept (although an FoI request might obtain copies), and I, of course, have not been able to verify them as yet. Again, these would appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources. They are probably at least technically published. This passage did not involve a BLP issue, but was so phrased as to fall afoul of WP:NPOV in  my view. I removed this second passage in the same edit as he first. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I invite all editors, including, to discuss in this talk page section the appropriateness of including this information in some form in this article. If any other editor is able to verify the quoted sources, that would be helpful. In the spirit of WP:BRD I strongly urge Malabar Facts not to attempt to reinstate the challenged passages prior to discussion here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I will add that Malabar Facts posted " I am the source and initiator of the investigations that are quoted." Clearly, this is an undeclared conflict of interest (WP:COI). I recommend that MF describe on own User page the nature of the conflict of interest. I also recommend that MF join the discussion here rather than continuing attempts to directly edit the article. David notMD (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that might consider tipping a newspaper or tv station and, if were developed into a newspaper or magazine article or some other news content, perhaps such an article could be included in the article... if Malabar Facts disclosed the conflict of interest and/or asked another editor to do it. I would do it myself. Using primary sources, especially when one points at a living person, does not seem like a viable option for the article. I am not opposed to incorporating such information if it can be found in a reliable, independent secondary source--indeed, it might then even be quite appropriate to include it. I just don't see how we can skip from primary source to tertiary source. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What might be done to encourage an outside investigation and secondary reporting is really not relevant here. Here we are discussing what should or should not go into the Wikipedia article. If an investigation happens and is reported on by secondary sources, that might well be included here, depending on the sources. If one has already happened and secondary sources about it can be cited, even better. Also, the original fare was apparently in 1994, more than 25 years ago. I rather doubt a TV station or newspaper is going to be interested, although one never knows. But those sourts of publications are mostly focused on more current events. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
A concern: User: Malabar Facts initiated controversial changes to the article and so far has not joined the discussion on the Talk page or on own Talk page. On 17 January a new editor User:Bromfield's Conscience restored what MF has been trying to create. This was the first ever edit by Bromfield's Conscience. Given that, the choice of editor names for both accounts and the critical nature of the Edit summary, I suspect this is the same person as Malabar Facts, trying to avoid being temporarily blocked under the Edit warring rule. David notMD (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)