Talk:Hal Prewitt

Article status

The status (actual or fictional) of this article has an odd history.

On 14 April 2010, User:Wikiranger82 announced that this article was a GA. But there's no sign in the history of this talk page that it ever was a GA.

Let's look for the GA discussion. First, however, examples of such discussions. Talk:Karim Benzema/GA1 is such a discussion from before this promotion of Hal Prewitt to GA; Talk:Larry Doby/GA1 is such a discussion from after it.

So then: Talk:Hal Prewitt/GA1. Redlinked: it doesn't exist. There seems not to have been a discussion. It appears that User:Wikiranger82 simply decided that this article was a GA.

On 3 April 2012 User:Tbhotch changed "GA" to "B" and added "sports-priority=low", with the laconic edit summary "re-assess".

On 10 June 2012, User:Deansmith750 removed "sports-priority=low" from the template above, and announced that the article was not B but GA, with the edit summary "Did not follow Good article reassessment/guidelines; no known reason for downgrade". (Tbhotch didn't downgrade the article, but instead corrected a fiction about it. Though his/her edit summary is easy to misinterpret.)

On 12 June 2012, User:Spyder Monkey changed the status to "B", with the summary "this hasn't been nominated for GA".

I'm hereby downgrading this article to "C" class. After all, it's shot through with dubiously sourced and promotional material (see below), so it doesn't hack it as "B". Yet there are some seemingly worthwhile bits in it, so it's better than a mere "Start".

I'm unable to estimate Prewitt's importance to/within motor sports. Others can do that. (His importance to/within photography seems to be negligible.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Deansmith750 reply: Nothing odd here. For over 5 years, more than 30 editors have contributed to the page. Stats show the article is currently viewed hundreds (sometime many thousands) of times each month and is pushing somewhere in the hundreds of thousands since it was created. What is strange is Hoary and Lopifalko sudden interest and their making recent massive changes to this page (including this talking page). Further, it is clear they have no direct knowledge about the biography of this person, the subject matter which they changed nor does it appear research was conducted. Efforts to improve the page are very much appreciated; some was helpful but many changes have done a disservice to the bio and users of wikipedia. There are a few key issues; (1) Hoary downgrading this article to "C" from "B". Hoary admits "unable to estimate Prewitt's importance to/within motor sports". He is not a member of WikiProject Sports Car Racing nor appears to have any experience in the area. Consequently the change is unsupported. (2) "dubiously sourced and promotional material". Published race results, interviews broadcast and appearing in written form along with stories produced and shown in many Media outlets are not "dubiously sourced" nor "promotional". Content is cited. Regardless, Wikipedia allows "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Additionally, the question regarding "promotional material" is addressed below. (3) This entire talk "Article status" is obfuscating. User:Wikiranger82 appears to have made an error as editors sometimes do. No problem, it was corrected. Granted, whether the article was a GA or not was subject to discussion and challenge in 2010. Your using this to justify in 2015 to downgrade this article to "C" from "B" in the motor sports classes is NOT relevant. Long ago, the page was evaluated by an editor that is a member of WikiProject Sports Car Racing with knowledge and they assigned the "B" classes where it has remained and been improved by many editors for the last 5 years.

Therefore, please undo your motor sports class changes. The objections are noted. Class changes are better made by members of WikiProject Sports Car Racing. By Wikipedia standards and review of the facts, the downgrade is not justified. -- Deansmith750 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You raise a number of points:

• I am indeed not a member of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, and appearances are correct: I have no experience there and little or none of editing there. However, I do think I have a moderately good or better nose for boosterism, and I fairly confidently remove boosterism from articles on any subject. (I don't claim never to make mistakes. I do make mistakes, and hope that these are brought to my attention.) I wish more editors would join the effort to remove it.
• You say Wikipedia allows "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". But I fear that you don't quite understand what this means. Let's say that somebody (let's call him A) has a blog (let's call this B): it doesn't mean that B can be cited as a source for A; it instead means that B can be cited as a source for B. Encyclopedia-worthiness doesn't require merit: a trashy website may be encyclopedic; and if it is, then the article about it may cite it.
• That an article was given such-and-such a rating long ago is no reason why it should retain that rating. You say that it has improved since then; let's put aside arguments over whether or not (i) the "B" rating was justified in the first place and (ii) the article has gone up or down in quality since that time, and instead compare the article with the stated criteria for a "B" rating. I don't believe that it meets these criteria. I'd welcome scrutiny by uninvolved members of WP:SCR and uninvolved people with experience of editing articles about US entrepreneurs or the personal computer business or both.
• You say "it is clear [Lopifalko and Hoary] have no direct knowledge about the biography of this person". I can't speak for Lopifalko; but you are right that I lack any direct knowledge. Is there perhaps an implication here that you do have direct knowledge of him?

-- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is correct and the fair action to undo your motor sports class changes. Please reverse. Your reasons do not support the reduction. Regarding the levels, there is a review process in WikiProject Sports Car Racing. Helpfull and I was planning to have review done after the latest and still missing details are including in the acticle. Wastefull to do before that is done. -- Deansmith750 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There are six criteria for "B" status, of which all must be met. Here's the first of the six: It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.... Does the article meet this criterion? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You have failed to undo your spiteful revenge or make amends for what you did and wrote. Instead I am directly challenged and read more excuses without seeing any effort to correct the mistakes.

I am very concerned, before allowing anyone to address your concerns (using this talk page) and after I reposted some of your removals, you attacked this article and every editor who worked on it the last 5 years saying "Calling this a C grade article is generous. It's stuffed with self-promotion". You unilaterally acted without customary Talk and stated "I'm hereby downgrading this article to "C" class. After all, it's shot through with dubiously sourced and promotional material (see below), so it doesn't hack it as "B". Yet there are some seemingly worthwhile bits in it, so it's better than a mere "Start"."

Yes, the Quality scale for "B" status in Biography/Assessment has been met.

Yes, the Quality scale for "B" status in Motorsport/Assessment has been met.

Yes, the Quality scale for "B" status in Sports Car Racing/Assessment has been met.

Checking some other "B" status articles in these WikiProjects show similar level issues to that of Prewitt's page.

There is no original research. Any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. In 5 years, logs show only in the last few weeks has someone had a big issue. Content in Prewitt's article has verified and reliable citations. These have been published on all types of Media. There is repository containing hundreds of historical documents on Prewitt and his companies going back to the earliest time period and that has been published or distributed in many forms. A number of years ago, there were many links to these documents but they were removed by wiki editors as unnecessary or not permitted. Some of the same materials appear (in full or with links to the documents) on the subjects own websites. Therefore, there is no problem using the subject's sites as primary or additional sources when that information is available in many places. Pointing to the subjects websites is compact, efficient and supported by Wikipedia policy.

The article conforms to special rules for BLPs. If Prewitt publishes something controversial that says "I am dyslexic...Only recently did I figure out the cause...", this can be contained in the article (this example was incorrectly recently removed). Should he ask something be published in the article, it is permitted if in accordance with questionable sources as sources on themselves.

Undo your class changes and restore any facts, relevant and contextual based content you removed. Then, if you have concerns; identify, comment explaining the issue or ask for more citations. Use this Talk page. I am sure someone will resolve them. -- Deansmith750 (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Promotional material

I'm interested in photography, and it's as a very indirect result of this interest that I reached this article, seemingly about a photographer -- one I'd never heard of.

Its second paragraph is, uh, promising, if hardly encyclopedic, reading:

His art and many of his images of wildlife, landscapes and exotic locales are on display in Park City, Utah Fine-Art Galleries. His images have become highly collectible and sell in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Other photographers verifiably get hundreds of thousands of dollars for their prints, but Wikipedia normally doesn't say this (the exceptions are when the high prices themselves attract independent commentary). But OK, let's take a look at the source for this. It's http://www.halprewitt.com/about.html, at the foot of which page we read "© Hal Prewitt". So the reason why Wikipedia's readers are told that Prewitt's images have become highly collectible etc etc is that Prewitt himself says so.

In just one recent edit, User:Deansmith750 (contributions) makes various changes. Among them, he adds:

Prewitt's primary talent is ability to bring home a win by clicking off laps and staying out of the pits, not damaging or killing the equipment. He owned and managed a race shop thereby bringing an additional perspective different from other drivers; Prewitt understands the engineering, physics and knows how to turn a wrench.

and

Prewitt has achieved impressive results in his racing career.

Putting aside the question of whether any race driver doesn't know how to turn a wrench, this stuff praises Hewitt. What's the source: a newspaper article, perhaps? Ah, no. It's instead http://www.prewitt.net/biography/biography.php. The top page of this website indicates that the proprietor is "Prewitt Enterprises, LLC. So the reason why Wikipedia's readers are told that Prewitt's an unusually skilled driver with impressive results is that Prewitt's company says so.

All of this suggests that this Wikipedia article is largely an auto-hagiography, and is increasingly becoming an auto-hagiography.

I invite Deansmith750, who recently and uninterruptedly made a great increase to the size of the article by larding it with trivia and self-promotion, to remove trivia, advertising, self-promotion, etc. If he doesn't, others will. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Deansmith750reply: I am member of WikiProject Sports Car Racing and WikiProject Biography. I have extensive knowledge and experience in these subjects and a general understanding about most of the people's skills, WikiProjects and content I have worked on or am currently developing. I focus on living people. As part of the research I try to meet them, interview anyone I can reach and conduct systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach correct conclusions. I spend hundreds of hours of effort collecting and verifying content I have published on these subjects. I have received images, historical records and obtain permissions where necessary or advisable.

Your ending statement is blatantly false. "I invite Deansmith750, who recently and uninterruptedly made a great increase to the size of the article by larding it with trivia and self-promotion, to remove trivia, advertising, self-promotion, etc. If he doesn't, others will."

A fact you overlooked, much of the content you found offending I did not originally post. Last time I worked on this site was in 2012. Hoary and User:Lopifalko have removed content posted by many others of which has been on this page a long while. However, I did review and ran through the above process and did repost including some of the recent content Hoary and Lopifalko removed along with some of their changes. Yes, some of the recent changes have improved the page and are very much appreciated. However, most removals or changes have done a disservice to the bio and users of wikipedia. I am not objecting to "toning down" content sourced from marketing, promotional materials or websites.

Reading your post and recent page changes made by Lopifalko, it appears your skills and issues relate to an interest in photography. Just because you have "never heard of" does not support your condemnation of me, other editors or this bio. There are hundreds if not thousands of successful and noteworthy artist that likely fall into this category. You are correct to question the source regarding "collectible" and selling for high value. I did not post this content and would like to see more cites to support these words. However, I did search, found collectors and communicated with owners and others who have confirmed the content is factual. Once again, just because you are not aware does not support its removal. The content should be flagged not removed. Your comments about his racing shows you have limited knowledge of the auto racing sport. If fact many drivers succeed while others fail because they lack the skills described in the article. I have researched and have direct knowledge about racing and many details on the biography of this person.

Your question, "So the reason why Wikipedia's readers are told that Prewitt's an unusually skilled driver with impressive results is that Prewitt's company says so. All of this suggests that this Wikipedia article is largely an auto-hagiography, and is increasingly becoming an auto-hagiography."?

Don't have to depend on any one website. Simple and quick search shows he is in the top 10 of 553 drivers and currently the leading America driver in the International Endurance Series Championship underway in Europe and the UAE. Last Dec, he set a World Record, won the Touring class and finished 3rd overall in the longest sports car race in the world. There is zero evidence (and much against) that the article is or has ever been "auto-hagiography, and is increasingly becoming an auto-hagiography."

Why are you the only one to make such a claim? For over 5 years, more than 30 editors have contributed to this bio. Stats show the article is currently viewed hundreds (sometime many thousands) of times each month and is pushing somewhere in the hundreds of thousands since it was created.

Show respect for this living person's bio, work done by other editors and provide users of wikipedia with the content removed. Would be best for Hoary and Lopifalko to help on this article's photography points and leave primary work to members of WikiProject Sports Car Racing and WikiProject Biography. Great Wikipededia articles come from editors who do the hard research and include work done by other's who they disagree with. Having direct knowledge about subjects related to a bio along with obtaining access to the difficult to find historic details on the person produces a factual and complete biography. It is proper to flag issues, ask questions and add content. DON'T REMOVE OTHER EDITORS WORK UNLESS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Not liking the style, words, disagreeing with other people opinions or finding something "too promotional" does not justify removal. The correct methods is to identify, comment or ask for more cites. -- Deansmith750 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: Until a recent spurt of activity here, you last made significant additions to the article back in 2012. Your recent edits may have largely restored material removed in the intervening three years by CorporateM, Lopifalko and perhaps others. Checking this would take more time than I currently have available, so I'll take your word for it, and apologize for the misrepresentation.

I am glad to read that this article does not have to depend on any particular website. It can therefore cite reliable websites that aren't under the control of the biographee.

Your opening paragraph talks about your editing patterns. But a look at your list of contributions suggests to me something rather different: an almost unwavering interest in one person: Hal Prewitt. Perhaps I am overlooking something.

I hadn't known that other editors' work couldn't be removed unless it was factually incorrect. This article has struck me as suffering from puffery and trivia. Of course different people have different standards for puffery and trivia. Do mine seem very strange? If not, are you saying that puffery and trivia should be retained? -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The OP is too long to read, but I wanted to agree that factual accuracy is not the only criteria for inclusion. There are other policies against promotion, trivia, weight, and basing the article primarily on credible, independent sources. CorporateM (Talk) 23:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this talk should not about me or any editor. ​ There are reasons editors don't do more work or post on many wiki pages. Easy to be wrong when we assume we know the answers. Very dumb and wrong to make changes to a article based on this. I hope you did not do that. Consider one reason, not every editor wants the world to know what pages they work on. Not all want fame or to be known. Best to stick to the difficult task of research and how we can help maintain or build great wiki articles. I would like to see any page I work on reach the highest quality level. This has nothing to do with the subjects achievements.

When we edit, we must show respect for this living person's bio and work done by other editors. In this case, provide users of wikipedia with the content that was removed. These words do not harm the bio. Editors should improve and try hard not to remove work done by others. The correct method is to identify, comment explaining the issue or ask for more citations.

My objection is the removal of facts, relevant and contextual based content. This has been done in the last two weeks and made by 3 editors. Content was removed and not added. Useful research was not done. There was little to no effort to identify, comment explaining the issue or ask for more citations before removing content. Talk page was not used. Therefore, there was no way for any editor to address anyone's concerns. My recent effort was to undo some of the removals, not improvements and update the page with new details I researched. Lopifalko promptly reversed most if not all my changes. This is a big problem and needs to be resolved. Some of the reasons given were "notability by association", "promotional and badly sourced", "whole pile of less worthwhile additions", "citations of Prewitt's corporate website" or "unsupported and non-noteworthy info".

Lets look at some examples of changes made by Lopifalko:

- Using "notability by association" to remove "in the years just prior to the introduction of their first personal computer" in the sentence "He provided consulting services to IBM in the years just prior to the introduction of their first personal computer and is credited..." impacts the context and relevance. IBM is a very large company with many products and services including a long and continuing history. When something happened is a key fact. Defining context is key to understanding relevance to Prewitt's timeline and consulting businesses. This is not "notability by association".

- Here's another: In his Youth section, using "Removed superfluous / biased language that fluffs up the subject, or is not noteworthy" removed this sentence "At 15, before he had a driver's license, he rebuilt the engine of a neighbor's Fiat after it was pronounced unsalvageable". This is a fact and clearly noteworthy ​and not superfluous nor "fluffs up the subject". How many teens rebuild engines let alone those that are unsalvageable? Prewitt grew up and became a successful and famous race car driver among many other technological based achievements. See the connections and relevance? Where is the "fluffs up"? What is "not noteworthy"?

Reading Lopifalko talk page, appears their interest and skills relate to photography.Would be best they help on this article's photography points and leave other work to editors with direct knowledge of Prewitt and/or members of WikiProject Sports Car Racing.

The answer to the questions: "are you saying that puffery and trivia should be retained?". No if excessive, changes the facts or not contextual based and does not support the primary subject of the article. Generally, I like to see as little of it as possible. However, trivia can often improve a bio. The little details can make a big difference especially when disclosure is not otherwise known. What is puffery, trivia or noteworthy to you or me is not necessarily the same for other readers. Context is very important. It can make the difference between seeing the relevance and completely missing the connection to the subject. A readers knowledge and experiences have a big impact. Removing puffery or trivia eliminates information and hides connections. Some editors have different style, values and words. It is understandable they may over emphasize. They may have special knowledge and surely posted their words for a reason. Who are we to second guess them? We never know what we don't know.

My rule when editing, if it adds or does no harm, leave it. If it detracts or is false then remove. Before I cut, I ask if somebody else will learn something or find value. Sometimes the cut can be a difficult call. When in doubt, I leave it. Perhaps the article has struck you as suffering from puffery and trivia because you did not find value or like facts written without additional details. Other readers may have different experiences, access to the history or subject knowledge.

"Is there perhaps an implication here that you do have direct knowledge of him?". Yes, I have. And, I am not alone. The guy is very approachable. Signs autographs at races, does interviews and answers questions. Reading other editors work, I can tell they have met him as well. As I wrote "As part of the research I try to meet them, interview anyone I can reach and conduct systematic investigation...". It was necessary to ask questions, collect difficult to find historic details in order produce a factual and target a complete biography. I wish I had the time to do more work on this person.

If anyone has removed any ​facts, relevant and contextual based content, please restore. Then, have concerns? Identify, comment explaining the issue or ask for more citations. Use this Talk page. I am sure someone will resolve them. -- Deansmith750 (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)