User talk:Pecondon

I need help
I am the son of Edward U Condon. I want to correct an error in his biography. I am 80 yrs old now and having serious trouble with the comprehending your user interface. I know some of the standard rules of referencing sources and I think a reference to me would be called a 'private communication' I cannot cite any source. I am the source. My younger brother Joseph Henry Condon, and my older sister, Caroline Marie Thornton (nee. Condon) are both deceased. I do not have access to the referenced source for the statement I wish to have deleted from the biography. Reference 4a asserts that EUCondon was raised as a Quaker. ( 2nd sentence of "early life and education" ) This is not true. He joined the Society of Friends as an adult while I was living at home, in Washington, D.C., not yet gone to college. The source used by the authors of your ref 4 are mistaken. (Ref 4b and 4c are, I think, correct, but the statement about childhood religion is mistake and the source is not authoritative about my father.) If wikipedia wants to have a statement about religion, it should go in a later section of the biography. This is well beyond my editing skills. For myself, I would be satisfied with a simple deletion of the single sentence, with a clean up of ref 4b and 4c. But I don't want to fake a reference. And I do want some record kept somewhere so that some reader of your biography and of ref 4, 'makes the connection' and 'fills in the blank' where there really should be a blank blank. What to do???

Pecondon (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The claim that Condon was "raised a Quaker" is sourced to Bird and Sherwin's book American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and that book indeed supports that statement. If Bird and Sherwin got it wrong, we would need a reliable source that explicitly contradicts them. Unfortunately we cannot just take your word for the falsehood of that statement. I'll leave notes at the article's talk page and some relevant noticeboards; with any luck published sources on Condon's religious persuasion exist (possibly some obituary?). Huon (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

reply and complaint
The book that is cited as the source of 'raised as a Quaker' does indeed make that statement. I thought I had made that clear in my first 'help me'. But it makes it without any information as to its origin. I think there is none, but by the time the authors started their research it was common knowledge that he was a member of the Friends Meeting in Washington and they just assumed it happened in childhood. My father was a person with a very outgoing manner and many views that were puzzling to people with only a knowledge of shallow form of conventional wisdom. I think that book is not in anyway a scolarly work. Condon was a supporting character in a chatty book about J Robert Oppenheimer. While waiting for a response to my first 'help me', I had a chance to read the Condon bio all the way to the end. I find a statement that Condon had two children, a son and a daughter, with an obituary in the NewYorkTimes as the citation. I read the citation on the web (as a pdf) and I see names Dr. Paul Edward Condon, Dr. Joseph Henry Condon, Mrs. Wayne Thornton, Emelie(sic) Condon (wife) as survivors. I claim to be Dr. Paul Edward Condon. Actually I AM Paul Edward Condon, graduate of Harvard College class of '55, and Princeton University(PhD). And the NYTimes got my mother's given name wrong. She spelled it 'Emilie'. What can I do to flag these examples of creative writing so that Wikipedia is not a party to there continued spread? (Actually, my mother had terrible handwriting. Many people, including me, could not read her writing reliably. I know her intended spelling only because she told me once about 70 yrs ago.) How does one prove a negative? (OK, I really don't expect a good answer to that question.) Cheers. Pecondon (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting situation, and first let me say that, while I am only 63 and non-notable, I can understand where you are coming from. The bottom line is that Huon is correct.  Wikipedia is interested in making sure that its articles are accurate, but not necessarily factual.  That just means that Wikipedia tries only to publish material from reliable sources.  It does not like to publish original research.  If you personally know that material is not accurate, then it is incumbent on you to provide reliable sources for that.  Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 17:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that's too glib. We can't say things that don't have reliable sources, even if they're true &mdash; but we also don't want to say things that aren't true, even if reliably sourced.  That said, we also can't set up a general scheme that allows people to come in and remove sourced info based on claimed personal recollections, because we don't have any mechanism for verifying that such people are who they say they are or that they remember correctly.
 * So it really is a dilemma, but given that the source has been called into question, it would be useful for the article's authors to try to investigate if they can, and not just lob the burden of proof back to the complainant. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Pecondon, there are some who would call my comments to you rather "short and sweet". I do not apologize for my comments because they are factual. Wikipedia has tools you can use to help you get what you want. For example, you could use the Verify credibility template in your father's article to challenge the source for the claim that you say is untrue. I suggest that you begin on the talk page of your father's article. Try to work up a civil discussion about the matter, there. Other contributors to the page can be found in the article's edit history. These are people who have been interested enough to edit your father's page. Go to their talk pages and invite them to your father's talk page to participate in the discussion. Please forgive me if you felt that I was too blunt before. My intention is usually to lead newcomers to their goal, but not necessarily by taking them by the hand, step-by-step, the entire way. Maybe it's a form of "tough love", I don't know. Surely there are some things that most editors would rather do for themselves? without being led around by the nose? You are certainly welcome to ask more questions and to seek more answers from me, either here or on my talk page. Joys! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 10:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Paine, did you think the comments you were responding to were from Pecondon? They aren't. --Trovatore (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Trovatore. I responded with an outdent based on the liklihood that you are right, that my initial response could have been more helpful.  So, in effect, I responded based primarily on your remarks.  Hope this helps.  Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 17:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We are interested in having correct and factual articles. Wikipedia used to have a saying "verifiability not truth", but this has been removed. If you can confirm your identity in some way I don't see why we can use editorial judgement to use your communications as a primary source for the information. What we really need is a record of the information though. You can send a submission to the email address given here: Contact_us_-_Subjects asking them to confirm the information on the page. Alternatively you can publish the information on any website you may run where your identity is known and this could be used as a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

i am confused
I am having trouble figuring out what is the status of the E U Condon issue. I will (I hope) generate a response with new information in a few days. I apologize to the delay.

Pecondon (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As explained on Talk:Edward Condon, I have removed the "raised a Quaker" line. Adding content, however, would require a published source so our readers can verify it. Huon (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)