Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 September 1

= September 1 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gene Basel
Hi,

I have added an additional reference to the Basel page.

In addition, I would like to explain my reason for doing this page. It is the result of research I am doing for a thesis. It is my plan to do a page that references the pilots who were shot down during Operation Rolling Thunder that were stationed at the two air bases in Thailand--Korat and Takhli. I hope to have this done before the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War as I believe that this event will create a great deal of interest in this military operation. I am certain that reporters and students will be doing research on this subject.

There were 396 pilots shot down--Gene Basel was one of the most decorated and was one of only thirty F105 pilots to destroy a MiG. This was something that was quite extraordinary since the F-105 was no match for the MiG--and out of the thousands of encounters with MiGs, the F-105s did not fair well. (I have added the reference to this today.)

This is my first submission, so any help and guidance is appreciated.

I do feel strongly that this page is very relevant. Basel's books reflect his growing disillusionment with the war and with the leaders at that time. This is not far removed from the ongoing problems of military men/women who wonder whether or not their services are appreciated or relevant. Patzigee (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I still think the draft's sources are problematic. Major parts, such as the "Early life and education" section and much of the "Military highlights and assignments", are entirely unreferenced, and one of the four references apparently is something a close personal friend said that made it onto the blurb for his own book - that's not quite an independent source. And the LA Times article, which is a very good source, is only cited for a quote from Basel's book when there's so much more we could use it for - for example, it confirms his awards (and details what he was awarded one of his Silver Stars for), gives the date of his F-105 training, details his operations in Vietnam, and so on. That source seems severely under-used to me.
 * I also noticed the draft is at times rather vague. It notes that Basel became a general officer, but not when or what rank he ultimately attained. It states he commanded the 352nd and 354th TFS, but gives no dates. Did he actually command those units or was he just part of them? In the latter case, they would be unsuitable for the infobox. Huon (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the info. When you say that early life and education are not sourced. How do I do that? I know where he graduated from...I have copies of his degrees. So how do I reference it?

Also, I have a number of articles in printed version of the events cited...e.g. the fact that he was the 1000th combat rescue, etc. Unfortunately the newspapers where these articles appeared are either out of business or have not put archived files on line. What do I do in that case? I have copies of his military records and citations...but the USAF does not yet have links to these...what can I do? He obtained the rank of Lt. Colonel--which I put in the info box. That is on his military discharge papers...what they call a DD-214. It lists his awards, ranks, etc. I have photos of his medals. As I said, he was a very highly decorated officer and I believe merits inclusion in WIKI.

You are right about the commanded...I am not sure...is there another title I should use for the units that he served in...I mean for the info box? Or just leave it in the career section?

Thanks for your help! I must say that this is a thoroughly enjoyable process...and I compliment everyone who has done this before. It is an amazing project.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patzigee (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry...was I supposed to sign? Patzigee (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources need not be online. Indeed many of the best sources are books not available online. Give full bibliographic information (newspaper, magazine or other containing work, title of story, date of publication, author where there is a named author, page number(s), location of publication, etc) such that an interested reader could find and verify the info in a library if s/he went to the needed effort and you are fine. It is often advisable to include a quote from the offline source to show exactly how it supports statements in the article. If you choose to use citation templates, the quote parameter can be used for this. I hope this is helpful. DES (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * About his early life: ideally you can find a biography to source such data to, failing that if any of the various newspaper articles or the like gave such data, those are sources. Where did the information now in the article come from, anyway? DES (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Most of the material came directly as a result of interviews with his family (Tina and Gene's two daughters). They provided me with copies of his DD-214, college degree, newspaper articles, photos, etc. I also contacted ten of his fellow pilots who confirmed the rest of the info--much of which was in his first book PAK SIX, the autobiographical one. The second book is fiction. As I said, I intend to interview all of the surviving pilots and or their families who were shot down during Operation Rolling Thunder. I will add more references and resubmit in a few days. Patzigee (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear me. I'm afraid those interviews, including the ones with the daughters, count as not just primary sources, but as original research, and as such nothing derived from them can be included in a wikipedia articel until and unless it is supported by published information. In many ways your best tactic is to do the interviews and gather the information, then publish an article, or even a book, somewhere else, somewhere that would count as a reliable source. Then you -- or much better, someone else -- could use that article as a source here. Failing that, you can, as I said above, use the newspapers as sources here, as well as other offline but published sources. One-off documents that no one else can verify, like his diploma, and I presume his DD-214 (unless a copy is on file that anyone can view) should normally not be cited here. His autobiography can be a source for basic uncontroversial facts, like his date and place of birth, his early life, his college degree, and the date of his marriage. But the events that make him notable and anything that might be contested should have an independent, verifiable, published source. I'm sorry if that feels awkward or limiting, but that is how Wikipedia works. It doesn't summarize everything that has happened, but everything that people have reliably written about. Being an encyclopedia, it is a tertiary source, and primarily relies on secondary sources, not primary ones. See WP:NOT for more detail. DES (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Thall69/sandbox
Hi, I have just submitted an article about Charles Noke (via my sandbox, User:Thall69/sandbox) - I think. Can I create another article whilst this is being progressed? If so how? Thanks, Tom.

Thall69 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have moved your current draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Noke; your sandbox is now a redirect to that page which you can overwrite to create a new draft. You can also create additional sub-pages of your user page, such as User:Thall69/Draft title, to create additional drafts, or you can directly create the additional drafts under names like Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Draft title.
 * Two side remarks: Drafts should not be categorized in mainspace categories before they have been accepted. The workaround is an additional colon: Category:1858 births produces a link to the category page (like Category:1858 births), but it does not add the page to the category. When the draft is accepted the additional colons will be removed by the reviewer and the draft will be added to the categories. Also, the references currently are all added to the very end of the article. They are supposed to immediately follow the statement that's supported by the reference. Huon (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)