Talk:Kelly Flinn

Red Flag

• During her deployment to Red Flag...

Surely she was not communist :-). Please disambiguate & add to Red flag (disambiguation). mikka (t) 18:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope I fixed. Please verify: It seems it is Operation Red Flag (not the movie, though). mikka (t) 19:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not "Operation" Red Flag. There is not and never was such a thing. --Buckboard 21:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability and renaming

Flinn isn't notable except for her involvement in the controversy surrounding her actions at Minot AFB. Therefore, this article shouldn't be a biography, but instead should be renamed as "Kelly Flinn incident" or something like that and then merge the info from this article into that one. I'll leave this open for discussion for a month or so before taking action. CLA 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - a case could definitely be made for notability aside from the incident, given the fact that she was the first female B-52 pilot and a published author. Videmus Omnia 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that might be a valid point, except that I can't find anything at all on the web that has been written about her since her book was published. She appears to have completely dropped out of sight. CLA 03:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with renaming the article. She was notable first due to her achievement, then due to the scandal. Cleduc 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Nevertheless, I think that there can also be a separate article called something like "Kelly Flinn scandal" or Kelly Flinn incident." CLA 20:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It would probably end up being merged here... Videmus Omnia 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree on that point. An article on the Kelly Flinn scandal would have a chance of becoming featured because there is enough information out there to write a complete article and it is no longer a current event. This article, however, stands very little chance of ever becoming FA eligible because, as far as I know, there hasn't been any information on the subject in secondary sources in several years. In fact, I may start and write the Kelly Flinn Scandal article myself sometimt in the future, but it may be awhile as you can see from my "to do" list on my userpage. CLA 02:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - you may have a point. I recently re-read Proud To Be...by renaming, we could definitely draw in the impact on the careers of Joseph Ralston and Sheila Widnall. Objection withdrawn, and I'd definitely be willing to collaborate. Videmus Omnia 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Before I raised my objection for this article to exist as a bio, I had forgotten that she had published a book, which probably makes her notable enough to keep this as an article. I'm in the process of getting the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident ready for another go at FAC review. If I had written that article as a bio of Michael Brown, it never would have had a chance at FA. But, by writing it about the event itself that makes Michael Brown notable, it can be complete. I would look foward to collaborating with you on an article about the incident that helped make this subject notable. If you decide to start the article using information from her book, let me know and I'll help add additional references through web searches. CLA 03:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll dig the book back out and start flagging the facts. Videmus Omnia 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported biography

Since the biographical material was completely unsourced, and this article is about the incident not the person, I have deleted it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The information was sourced, just not with inline citations. I've fixed that. Furthermore, note, that Kelly Flinn was the first female B-52 pilot (for better or worse) and achieved noteriety through that as well. Please also realize that Kelly Flinn redirects to this page and (see above) it's been agreed upon that this should contain basic details of her life as an effectively merged article. Buffs (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The information was not sourced before. We now have her autobiography as the only source of information about her life outside the "incident". Per WP:V, we should "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This material is not acceptable without an independent reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether you think it was sourced before or not is irrelevant. It is annotated as such now. Furthermore, her autobiography was published by Random House and they are known for publishing reliable books. It is not a violation of BLP when the information mentioned is complimentary/non-contentious. Even if you don't think the source is reliable, it meets all requirements for verifiability under WP:SELFPUB. Just because it is the only source doesn't mean it isn't accurate or that there is any reason to doubt the basics of her life. If you think it needs more, feel free to pick from the plethora of sources available and add them yourself. Buffs (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We have policies on verifiability and independence of sources precisely to avoid having this sort of discussion. Let me reiterate some policies -- WP:BURDEN The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You don't get to tell other people to find references when you can't be bothered. WP:SOURCES Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An autobiography is rather obviously not a third-party source. WP:V If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. It's not just me who think it needs more. WP:BLP When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. At present the biographical material contravenes all of these policy requirements. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We have talk pages for exactly this kind of discussion.

1. I never said I "couldn't be bothered". I merely asked you to identify which sources you felt would be best to add to the article to verify the facts presented and just add them (seems like a simple solution to me). Obviously there are varying opinions on what satisfies verifiability and some of the language is open to interpretation. Nothing in this bio is controversial or self-serving.
2. "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced  Done, neutral  Done, and on topic  Done."

If you can't be bothered to improve an article, perhaps you could take 60 seconds to review the link I posted to various sources and indicate which one meets your personal criteria and I'll happily add it.

WP is first and foremost an encyclopedia; it isn't a place for people to go around enforcing various edicts solely to go on a power trip. If the only problem is a source for the information other than the book, then the information isn't incorrect or misleading. It merely needs another listed source and it is an administrative/trivial problem. Buffs (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WP is a place for writing articles based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is not a triviality. Basing the biographical part of this article solely on the subjects autobiography is not completely sourced and is patently not neutral. The burden of evidence is on the person adding the material challenged, which in this case is User:Buffs. If reliable third-party sources are not forthcoming then policy dictates that the material should be removed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I f***ing asked you to pick which source you want (gave you a list of over 100) and your response is to ignore it? Despite your probable beliefs that you feel you are improving WP, you aren't. All you want to do is force others to improve it. Let's go over why WP:BLP exists. Short version, we don't want defamation lawsuits on our hands. If you use an autobiography as a source, it kinda makes it difficult for anyone to claim defamation. Just because the book was an autobiography (which, by definition, is liable to be non-neutral), it doesn't mean that the info in Wikipedia isn't neutral; you are confusing the two concepts. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have pared back down to what appears to be supported by the one independent source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Translation: you are being dickish about the whole matter. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly the references so indiscriminately added fail to support the article. For example, the NY Times editorial, currently reference [1], is cited after every paragraph of the biography, but in eight of those cases it does not actually support the material. This is unacceptable. In fact, it looks rather like disruption. When adding citations, take the trouble to read the references and only cite them against the portions of the article that they actually support. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a useful guideline here. At present the material is not adequately sourced, because some of the citations do not actually give the support that they are supposed to. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tidied up one of the references. The rest need to be carefully looked at. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The opinion piece from the Baltimore Sun does not support most of the assertions it is cited against, and I have removed those. One reference is a search link which is not acceptable per WP:ELNO (9). Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The PBS transcript is a discussion about the case rather than reporting it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've reviewed all the citations added by Buffs. As I pointed out, he inserted all of the referenc\es after every paragraph of the article. Sadly almost all of them did not support the assertions made -- it is clear that he did not actually trouble to read them. This is highly disruptive. What remains of the biography that can be sourced independently, ii.e. not to the autobiography is "Flinn was born in St. Louis, Missouri, the youngest of five children. She decided to become a pilot after attending Space Camp in Huntsville, Alabama." That's it. Without independent reliable sources that actually support the material added, we just cannot keep this stuff. The object here is not to add material that is sufficiently agreeable to the subject to avoid trouble, it is to build a reliable encyclopedia. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability

So far we have only one source for this article, and that's an opinion piece from the New York Times. Is there any reason to believe this incident is notable, that is, that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you f***ing serious? I give a link ask you to pick a source (any of which would meet your criteria) and your response is, "well, even though I made no effort to assist in any meaningful way and you didn't jump through all the hoops, I'm still going to delete this uncontroversial information until you make sure to dot every i and cross every t." UFB! Buffs (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You have NO idea on the subject and I've added references from coast-to-coast. If the references satisfy your lust for bureaucracy, awesome. If they don't, pick which ones you want. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the references recently added to the article, the incident is clearly notable. The rest of the biography is less clear. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Article move

User:Buffs has just moved the article from Kelly Flinn incident to Kelly Flinn. This seems precipitate at best, since the article was moved in the opposite direction earlier this month. There was no discussion of this reverse move here, and the stated reason article is more about her than the single incident has not yet reached any sort of consensus as the discussion above shows. Should the article be moved yet again? Views please. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand by the move. IMNSHO, you seem to be quibbling over minutia. If you are going to have an article about the incident, a little background information is in order. The form in which it is presented is largely irrelevant. Buffs (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)