Talk:Ron Logan

Verifiability
This statement added on March 14, 2007 is absurd: You may know Ron Logan personally and have reviewed this article with him but merely noting that he has declared it accurate is grossly insufficient to meet any reasonable test of verifiability. Read WP:V to understand Wikipedia's requirements for the verifiability of its content. &mdash;Whoville (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has been checked for accruacy (sic) by Ron Logan. No further citations needed.


 * Not sure how you plan on verifying anything unless you go through old guidemaps that show all the project dates. Ron wrote the book on Entertainment at Disney, so I don't know what else you'll be able to find to verify anything. Magicalbill (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bill, read WP:VERIFY:
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
 * If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
 * As the creator and largest contributor to this article, it's your responsibility to provide reliable sources for its information. If none exist, then the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. &#151;Whoville (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fully aware of that... but here's my concern: A lot of information regarding Ron is only available internally within The Walt Disney Company.  Michael Eisner gave permission for Ron to publish his book.  And I could very well cite Ron's Book as a source, but it's written by Ron, and the only other records that exist that would back up anything in the book are inside Disney's Corporate Archives.  It's all true information in the book, it's just that the sources of the book's information are not public information, that's all intellectual property of Disney.  Ron's Book also is only published by the University of Central Florida, where Ron is a Professor teaching there, and it's in a paper form that doesn't even have an ISBN.  The book was co-authored, so if that is acceptable as a source for wikipedia, I could add in the book.  But otherwise, if you can help me find a solution to the problem that doesn't involve removing the article, I'd really appreciate it.  Thanks.  Magicalbill (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this article provides no evidence that Logan either conceived or designed the various exhibits at Walt Disney World with which his tenure is associated, I don't think this article merits inclusion on importance/relevance criteria. It certainly lacks an ISBN publication history as well. Thirdly and perhaps most significantly, the article clearly represents a conflict of interest, as it appears to have been written by the subject. Why not find out who actually conceived and designed those projects and write an article about them. Logan may only have been a Disney corporate lackey, based on the article as it now stands.71.225.148.179 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)