Talk:National Puzzlers' League

Sources and notability
We need real sources for this article -- that means sources other than ones published by the same group.

We also need something to indicate that this group is notable... again, that requires evidence from something other than the group itself. DreamGuy (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think notability is really up for debate here; as the article says, it's the oldest organization of its type in the world (125 years), which in itself makes it notable. I do agree that the article needs to have outside citations added throughout; hopefully JJB or someone else will have the time to add those in.  Qaqaq (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oldest anything in and of itself doesn't make anything notable... we're talking by Wikipedia standards here, not by personal interest standards. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a search for "National Puzzlers' League" in the New York Times archive and found quite a few articles. I paged through fifty or so but there may have been more.  These could be used to establish notability, if needed, and might also contain some information that could be added to the article or used to reference what's already here. Mike Christie (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources can easily be found using find:. Kumquat75 (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC) — Kumquat75 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I've looked through the sources provided in each of those links, and on a casual glance through the first few pages of each I've not found any that meet WP:RS rules as far as I can tell. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DreamGuy, would you mind, in this 1-4 discussion, waiting until those of us who are familiar with the reliability of the sourcing, but who did not intend to make the improving of references to that sourcing a priority project this week, to catch up with you? I will happily leave re-removal of the notability tag to one of the other editors; but you do have the burden of proving your assertion that multiple in-depth New York Times articles on NPL conventions, available at that "news" link above, are not a reliable source. Since you and I are more aligned on a different topic we have both contributed to, I'm surprised you'd want to continue a lonesome course here of decrying NPL content as if run-of-the-mill fancruft or indiscriminate information. Please build, thanks. Until further built, of course "refimprove" is appropriate. JJB 15:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The notability tag can be removed when the problem is solved per Wikipedia standards, and not before. In the meantime I think you'd be best to give up trying to claim a consensus here. You and Qaqaq have admitted to being members of the group, so have a clear WP:COI violation. Kumquat75 is a brand new user out of nowhere with only three edits to his name, two on the NPL issue and one to attack me over a JTR issue. That account is a clear sockpuppet and cannot be used for purposes of counting "votes" on what to do. Your aggressive tone here is misplaced. I am here to make sure Wikipedia policy is followed. If you are willing to update the article to do so, then fine, if you refuse to then that's your problem and not mine or Wikipedia's. DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned my involvement in the group because I want to be up-front about it. I don't think that means that my opinions are necessarily unvaluable, however, and I am not blindly pro-NPL in the edits: I have agreed that the NPL article needs more citations; I am against the NPL template; and I have been trying to scale back the NPL links that JJB has been adding.  As far as the notability of this article, you are welcome to believe that my opinion is too subjective to be valid; however, I am quite certain that this article would survive any outside examination (e.g., at AfD if it came to that).  Finally, *your* aggressive tone (e.g., in your final sentence) is misplaced; perhaps this is due to your repeated run-ins with JJB, but it's unnecessary and unhelpful.  Qaqaq (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion that my "aggressive tone here is misplaced", so I merely repeat, please wait on your policy-pushing until we catch up with you (i.e., by our distilling those sources), or prove your assertion that the multiple NYX articles don't "meet WP:RS rules", or build yourself. Thank you. JJB 16:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where on earth did you get the bizarre idea that we're supposed to wait before following policy? The article should ALWAYS follow policy. Beyond that, tagging it as needing sources and proof of notability *IS* essentially waiting, instead of going direct to deleting the article, which is certainly within rights for an article like this that has never had any sources to back it up. Get people to agree on sources, add the sources, and then you can remove the tag. "Policy-pushing" is just an amusing phrase. "Pushing" is usually reserved for things that are bad, like POV-pushing, not for things that are required. DreamGuy (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DreamGuy suggests that anyone who is a member of the NPL cannot be trusted to have an unbiased opinion. That's preposterous. Just last week, several NPL members responded to my request to delete an NPL template. If we were blindly pushing our organization on people, we would say "Put this template everywhere!" But a number of us think that's more than our organization deserves. Here's what the organization does deserve: a place on Wikipedia because it's the oldest, most prestigious, and most notable puzzle organization in the world. It also deserves a better article than this. It should be sourced, trimmed, and made less complimentary. It should not focus on individual members. It should link to news articles about the league. None of this will happen overnight. But it should happen nonetheless.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Disclosure first, in case it's relevant to any discussion; I'm also a long-standing NPL member (Lucifer is my nom, for other NPLers who may not know me as Mike).


 * I think a template is fair.  The sources are all self-published; I think they could reasonably be used for some things, such as information about the League itself (e.g. what the membership fee is) but by and large they don't meet the reliable sources test.  Personally I think that Eckler's book is completely reliable, and a fine piece of historical research, but it doesn't technically meet the RS definition as it stands, because it was published by the NPL.  It might be interesting to start a discussion at the relevant policy page on this -- there was a recent conversation on WT:FAC about a similar situation where a self-published expert is or is claimed to be the best source there is on a specific topic.  For this page I suggest we forget about self-published sources for now, just because I think those aspects of the NPL that really are notable enough to be documented can be sourced elsewhere.


 * With regard to the tag I do think the league itself is notable enough to have an article, and that reliable sources can be found.  I have a subscription to the NYT so I will look through some of those articles and see what I can find to establish notability; I will probably just drop some of the source information here on the talk page so it can be discussed before being used in case there are disagreements.  Two sources I did already find that look like they might help establish notability are here; they may both be the same article in different papers.  They cover the one hundredth anniversary of the League's founding, and the Miami Herald, at least, is a paper that can be treated as a reliable source.  (I don't know the other paper.)  However, I don't have a subscription to either one, and couldn't find the equivalent story in the NYT.


 * I'll post again here if as I find candidate sources. Mike Christie (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Establishing notability
The first thing I've run into is multiple NYT articles that provide coverage of the annual and semi-annual conventions. I think the existence of this much coverage establishes the notability of the convention and by extension the NPL itself. Here are some of the relevant articles:
 * "Puzzlers' League Opens 3-Day Test", 2 Feb 1936, Religious News, p. 17
 * "Puzzlers Puzzle Over Mere Rebus", 25 Feb 1935, Books Art-Books, p. 19
 * "Woman Is Named Head of Puzzlers League", 24 Feb 1929, p. 3
 * "Puzzle Experts Vie at Tourney Here", 21 Feb 1932, p. 14
 * "200 Relax in Holiday Cryptogram, Take Bracing Plunge in Alphabet", 5 Sep 1948, p. 42

Then there are obituaries that mention that the deceased was a member of the NPL. Two examples:
 * "Paul M. Bryan: Producer of First Newsreel an Ex-Head of Puzzlers' League", 5 Aug 1944, p. 11; this one mentions the membership in the subhead
 * "Mrs. Doris Nash-Wortman Dies; Devised Double-Crostic Puzzles", 9 Jun 1967, p. 46; includes the sentence "Mrs. Wortman, who was for a time president of the National Puzzlers' League, won several awards, including the league's title of grand champion puzzler one year for turning in the highest score in a test composed of knotty questions".

There were a total of 51 articles that appeared in the archive when I searched for "National Puzzlers' League". Some of the others simply mentioned the NPL in passing -- for example just to say that the subject of the article was a member.

I think this is enough to establish notability of the NPL itself, and that the conventions are notable enough to be described. The NYT's repeated mentions of who the president is, in obituaries and in the 1929 article, imply notability at least for that title. I don't think that would justify a full list of all officers here, but it justifies a link to the NPL web page for that information, and I'd say it also justifies a list of the current officers which could be sourced from the website.

I'm going to leave it at that unless someone raises further concerns about notability. I think this is enough to establish the points at issue. Mike Christie (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this is enough to remove the notability tag. I do think we have a long way to go before that refimprove tag can be taken off.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Question for DreamGuy
I see you've restored the notability tag, asking for the relevant reliable sources to actually be added to the article. That's reasonable. Rather than try one or two and get into a revert cycle, could you comment on the sources I located above? Do they establish notability? If so, I will edit the article to cite those sources; if not, we can discuss. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike Selinker removed the notability tag again, and DreamGuy once again restored it, insisting that the article actually be fixed. Here's his edit summary: "not sure how many times you need to be told this, but the tag stays until the article is actually fixed. claiming it can be fixed but not bothering to fix it isn't good enough".  Technically DreamGuy is correct; WP:N doesn't specifically say "notability established on the talk page is not good enough", but it talks about whether the article itself establishes notability.  Some of the criteria, such as "Significant coverage", on the other hand, clearly don't require all of that coverage to be on the article page itself, but refer to the universe of sources that could be cited.  I was hoping DreamGuy would comment here on whether the sources establish notability, so we could avoid a cycle of reverts, but it seems he's not intending to comment so I've gone ahead with an edit to try to resolve the issue.


 * What I did was add a couple of sentences to the lead in order to be able to cite some of the sources I found. Here are the details of how the requirements of WP:N are met, in my view, in case there are disagreements.
 * "Significant coverage": there are scores of NYT articles over a period of decades covering League conventions, the membership in the League of otherwise notable people, and in at least one case the election of the president of the League.
 * "Reliable": The NYT is an established reliable source.
 * "Sources": Sources are provided. These are secondary, multiple sources as preferred in the policy.
 * "Independent of the subject": The NYT had no connection with the subject at the time of any of the sources cited. It has a minor connection now: Will Shortz is a member; that would not affect any modern day coverage but none has so far been cited in any case.
 * "Presumed": This is where the coverage becomes a topic for discussion: I would presume this coverage establishes notability.


 * The two sources cited discuss the League being "close to half a century" old (in the 1923 article); and mention the "semi-annual conventions".  The articles do not explicitly mention February and September as the dates of the conventions, but they refer to current conventions and are dated in those months, so I think it's justified to use them to support that statement.


 * I have deleted the notability tag again, along with the inline comment saying no sources are reliable. I have left the refimprove tag since the article is now almost completely without reliable sources (instead of being completely without them). Mike Christie (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll predict the future and say that if DreamGuy adds the notability tag again, I'll delete it, and by the three-revert rule, this will go to arbitration. If not, we'll just focus on improving the article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It wont be the firsttime : Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2 Hes terminally argumentative, and apparently incapable of apology or humility. (Almost) everywhere he goes he finds new enemies, and spreads ugly frustration. Magic8ball thinks he is a Griefer with delusions of grandeur. ---Kumquat75 (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent expansion of article
JJB: You have said that you are an "inclusionist", and as part of that philosophy, you have greatly expanded this article. As I have said before, though, I feel that many of the things you are including are of little to no interest to outside parties, and can only fairly be categorized as "cruft": for example, the games played at conventions, which is not only crufty, but not even a currently accurate sampling.

Some of my other specific problems (not a full list): (1) the list of winners at the ACPT is covered in that article, and is redundant here; (2) the list of "other members", if it exists at all, should not include people not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles; (3) the lengthy description of how NPL puzzles work should be pared to a few sentences and a link to the NPL website for people who want a fuller understanding of the topic. (To anticipate a potential argument: this isn't a question of "not paper"; it's a question of succinct writing.)

As Michael Selinker said earlier, this article needed to be trimmed and touched up; this is exactly the oppposite of what was needed (aside from using the Games article as a reference, which was helpful).

In case other editors feel greatly differently, I am going to leave this post here for discussion purposes before making any changes, but given others' previous posts, I would not be surprised if your edits get pared back significantly. Please do not take it personally if that happens. And, while I know (once again) that you prefer to include everything conceivably possible, and that you enjoy arguing small points to try to get your way, please try to understand the majority point of view here: that the NPL deserves an article -- short, well-written, well-sourced -- that explains what it is about, gives some context, and does not contain material unlikely to be of interest to a first-time reader. Thanks. Qaqaq (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I agree with that statement of majority POV, I understand that inclusionism often faces valid paring back, and I don't wish to argue little points. I only provide explanatory observations: (1) ACPT does not mention that all or virtually all winners are NPL members, which is statistically significant, and thus germane to both articles; (2) WP:NNC provides for WP inclusion in lists of people not notable enough for their own articles (otherwise, the list of winners should be pared from ACPT also, clearly not the intent of policy); (3) the description of the puzzles, plus the examples themselves, is almost entirely taken from Games as a reliable and verifiable source, and I don't see encyclopedic treatment of 19th-century puzzles being any more succinct (although spinout is certainly possible!); (4) I did note in a hidden comment that the games selected were nonrepresentative, but that an improved list should be readily sourceable. I perhaps did digress upon crosswords too much in an effort to provide background for readers from a likely point of interest, and that probably could be better off in the crossword article, which is barren of prehistory (remember the 7x7 numbered grid with fingers, but without squares, which predated Wynne?). JJB 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only point I'll respond to for now: surely you can see the difference in relevance between showing a list of winners of a given tournament (which is obviously of potential interest to a reader of such an article) and the list of "other members" that you have here (which is unlikely to be). Qaqaq (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Qaqaq. I think the article needs to be cut severely, and his comments are spot on.  I am unlikely to do much to it myself as I don't have as much time as I'd like for Wikipedia at the moment, but I support the cuts he outlines.  The NPL is clearly notable and deserves a good, concise, encyclopedic article, but this is not it. Mike Christie (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've begun the cleanup. I got rid of a lot of the cruftiest stuff, though there's still more cutting that could probably be done. It might also be best to reorganize the article so that it is no longer a bunch of short sections. If no one else wants to continue the effort, I might give it another whack when I get more time. Qaqaq (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Source?
So, I admit I haven't the energy nor the real comprehension of Wikipedia policy to make these edits myself, but I was idly searching on Google Books and discovered at http://books.google.com/books?id=tasSFldVjQEC&pg=RA3-PA21&dq=%22national+puzzlers%27+league%22&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U0AJjTwUBKy_Ptqwpc2xNfP_rH3tA (rightmost column) that the League was founded, in part, by Solicitor General James M. Beck. That (a) seems like another point of notability, not that that still seems under question, and (b) ought to provide another legitimate source to the article, which seems like it is still a need. (There's also an unindexed article from Business Week, 1938. I have no idea if it says anything interesting, but I admit I'm curious.) Tahnan (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re expanding
I backed off from this article for reasons obvious from its history, but wanted to reaffirm that there is much expansion necessary. Just to repeat the principles which will be guiding my adds: (1) All relevant, neutral, verifiable, reliably-sourced, and otherwise policy-compliant content is generally expected to be permissible. Much, much info on the NPL has been published by NYX and NYHT and meets this criterion. Games magazine is also reliable but should be used with more caution because of the similarity (not conflict) of interest. (2) Information from NPL sources, such as its 125-year-old journal, directory, convention history, and officer history, all of which are available at the Library of Congress and other libraries, is generally permissible if the WP:SELFPUB tests are all met. For instance, if there is sufficient info on NPL conventions and officers from NYX, it is acceptable to fill in some gaps by using NPL self-published sources, but not to base the article primarily on such sources. (3) Given WP:NNC, it is appropriate for members who appear elsewhere in WP to be listed here. Of course, I don't mean members I insert and get reverted on near-immediately, which happened once or twice in my haste; I mean members who are notable in other contexts (though not necessarily notable enough for standalone articles), because mentioning their membership is then a good web-building maneuver.

I believe that these principles, which I understand to be commonsense policies, got lost in the shuffle in my last spate of edits in this area. Since 5 or 6 NPL members (including myself) have already commented on this talk page, I think there has been an unintentional in-group bias favoring minimal information due to people's personal closeness with the info presentable. I believe this is not the general drift of WP, and so I am requesting input from the orgs Wikigroup. The question is: given a 600-member org which is the oldest of its kind and has a 1200-issue journal and dozens of NYX writeups, mostly in the 20s and 30s, where should the line be drawn between "all policy-compliant content is welcome" and "arguably policy-compliant content, also considered cruftiferous by a couple of the org's members, is unwelcome"? I know I'm not giving much in the way of example, but I would appreciate the input of those who are familiar with basic WP standards on smaller orgs; this gives several good ideas of the kind of content I mean. Thanks for your help. JJB 03:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I took at quick look at the suggested changes and I think at least some of them are not necessary -- the mention of games played at the convention, for example; or the mention of P45. Mentions of the NPL in NYT examples don't automatically make everything in those articles suitable for adding.  I'd say this article is at about the right length for Wikipedia right now.  Not to say that it can't be improved, but my suggestion would be to take the energy you have for editing and work on some other articles that need it more than this one.  Alternatively, this article could also do with some polish, and perhaps reorganization, as Qaqaqa suggested above.


 * Specific answers to your questions: (1) Relevant, neutral, verifiable etc. is the bar for admissible content, but as I said above information doesn't automatically have to be inserted because it meets the bar. Verifiability is not the same as notability, and to a degree, governed by editorial discretion and WP:NNC, this applies to content of articles as well as articles themselves. (2) NPL publications can only be used for the most minimal information, all of I would think is already in the article -- the URL of the website, for example, or the existence (but not details) of the conventions.  Even this much use might get challenged at WP:FAC; more is definitely problematic.  (3) I think there would be no objection to mentioning two or three of the most famous NPL members.  I do think there's no point mentioning people just because they are notable enough to have WP articles; the value of mentioning them is that the reader will recognize their names, so only quite well-known people should be mentioned.  I would also avoid adding people like Christopher Reeve, who was given a gift membership that he quite likely had no interest in. Mike Christie (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Mike. I also found WP:PEOPLE, which may contradict both of us. JJB 14:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)