User talk:Joe Friendly

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Joe Friendly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Medea Benjamin. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Howard Hughes
Joe, please review Wikipedia's concept of due weight. The fact that a claim has been published, no matter how convincingly the claim is made, does not entitle it to inclusion on Wikipedia. All claims, especially controversial ones, must demonstrate that they are significant points of view, rather than a claim held by a single person, or a small fringe group. In this case, if the book has been well received by respected historians, then it would be suitable for inclusion. However, professional reviews of the book appear to be non-existent, which would completely preclude it from inclusion of Hughes' page. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SchuminWeb for pointing me to Wikipedia principles I had not yet read.

You are correct Someguy1221 that I was trusting my own senses to evaluate a fringe idea as truthful and therefore I thought worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia Howard Hughes article.

It seems to come down to a need for some confirmation happening in the public arena before Wikipedia is comfortable presenting a point of view. Rather than judging truthfulness directly, even tho it seems to be a place where people do turn as a source for truth, Wikipedia prefers, for the sake of reliability, the conservative role for its editors of judging social response as indication of truthfulness, worthiness, rather than evaluating truthfulness on their own.

The special situation here is the truthfulness of an existing article is challenged and therefore, arguably, some urgency is called for to determine the credibility of the challenge.

In olden times truth had to wait for correction until publication of the next edition of the encyclopedia, but in our electronic age people understandably expect truth continuously from Wikipedia. Does it truly require a "respected historian" or merely common sense to determine whether retired Major General Mark Musick properly investigated the claims of Eva McLelland to have been married to Howard Hughes until 2001 and reported his findings in good faith?

Altho no reviews have been published by noted authorities, there are Amazon reviews that demonstrate readers consider the book credible. Might that be enough to indicate the guy is not crazy, that his story may well be true? In that case the words you deleted, Someguy1221, seem appropriate for inclusion as at least suggesting there does exist an alternate view that Hughes lived until 2001 married to Eva, etc.

Besides Amazon to look to, there is also to be considered in the interests of minimizing delay when there is substantial challenge a Wikipedia article has it wrong and credibility is at issue: Youtube offers additional basis for judging credibility of the retired Major General Mark Musick, where he can be seen and heard presenting a book talk at a New York City public library. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTtD3Edtyzo/ Wikipedia could resort to that opportunity to help confirm credibility as well as point readers to that opportunity.

Think about how valuable and useful that extra info from Youtube can be in judging if someone is crazy or lying before jumping upon the fact that in the interests of full disclosure I turn out to be the individual who videotaped that talk at the library and uploaded it! sigh, complicating matters,  somewhat, making me an editor with additional ties to the subject. As stated in my User page, I produce a daily one hour TV show in NYC for a non-profit community channel. So, neutral I can’t exactly claim, I have benefit of additional information. I have no enduring connection but a sense of justice and value for truth: the Wikipedia article should tell it like it is.

I see on your user page Someguy1221 you have thought long and hard on these issues, and apparently been a major force in upholding requirements of social standing. But the logical conundrum is that in some situations Wikipedia has the power to greatly influence the social standing of an idea and should recognize it enough to use it responsibly. Joe Friendly (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Joe Friendly (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Insertion of Demolition Info on the Wrong Tower in Fort Worth
I have noticed that you have created an error on the The Tower (Fort Worth, Texas) article. You added that it was brought down by controlled implosion in 2006. This is NOT the case. That was the former Block 82 Tower, and the building that was brought down by controlled implosion in 2006 was actually the Landmark Tower, which does not have an article on this site. The former Block 82 Tower was actually converted into a residential building after it was damaged by a 2000 tornado. Do not insert false info on the wrong skyscraper again, please. Jim856796 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth
Besides needing a clearly reliable source, when it comes to living people we need to err on the side of caution before giving a full dob, see WP:BLPDOB. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)