Talk:Obert Logan

Untitled
First, Obert Logan is dead. In the article I cite his obituary in the San Antonio Express News. Therefore this cannot be a biography of a living person.

Second, There is a good deal of controversy at Wikipedia about what is and is not reliable sourcing for an article. In the articles I write I follow the same standards that I use for scholarly articles for publication, that is I follow the standards of the Chicago Manual of Style and current practice in academia generally.

Under these standards, a personal communication is a valid source if the individual making the communication was an eyewitness to the events reported. I followed the career of Obert Logan from the time I was 12 years old and the things I report in the article are things I saw happen with my own eyes. The veracity of these reports are confirmed by citations to newspaper articles that describe events entirely in keeping with those I report.

After I posted the first version of this article, a second poster, who had known Logan personally in the second part of his life, after Logan left the playing field for coaching, reported more facts, of which he had personal knowledge, and which again could be confirmed through newspaper articles reporting similar incidents.

As nearly as I can tell the person who tagged this article, feels that if we had taken this information and gotten it published somewhere else, and then cited it on Wikipedia, that this would be acceptable. But that the article is unacceptable because we composed it on Wikipedia.

I have to say I think this is nonsense. I believe this article to be a perfect example of the potential of Wikipedia. I, who knew and loved Obert Logan, a man with a significant football career, that is not reported in other sources, create an article about him and publish it here. This attracts someone else who knew and loved Logan to contribute to the article. Thus Wikipedia functions as a repository of information that would be unlikely to be brought together in any other way.

This is completely different from me coming up with some crossed eyed theory about something and insisting on inserting it into Wikipedia articles on the subject. The information in this article is well attested, and the fact that it is unavailable in any other source, is, to my mind, not a problem but an example of Wikipedia at its best. If Wikipedia is not about bringing together accurate information from multiple sources, then someone should tell me what it IS for. Kcranson (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcranson (talk • contribs) 11:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)