Talk:Daddy Warbucks
(Redirected from Talk:Oliver "Daddy" Warbucks)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Worshipful Bro. Daddy Warbucks
[edit]I mentioned that based off of information in the comic Daddy Warbucks is said to be a Mason, even serving a term as Worshipful Master. My original sources were a Masonic Grand Lodge website, and the blog of Christopher L. Hodapp. The edit was reversed on the grounds that the original reference was "unreliable" and the second was a blog. So now I've added a reference from the Library of Congress. PeRshGo (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Right now you have two references to Masonic publications. Neither appears to be a Reliable Source, as they're both self-published (see WP:RS). Furthermore, the Grand Lodge BC site doesn't even work even if it is a reliable source, because it doesn't actually say anything about Daddy Warbucks being a Freemason. Both the comic and the description may imply something, although it's not clear to me exactly what they're implying. Perhaps to a Mason that info means something, but putting that inference onto Wikipedia counts as WP:OR. In order to include this information, you need a Reliable Source that explicitly states that, based on a specific comic or set of comics, we can tell that the artist intended Warbucks to be a Mason. I'm not going to pull that statement yet til I hear back from you or a day or two have passed, but, as it stands now, that's OR (I'll tag it as such). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You do realize that nearly the entire article can be just as easily qualified as WP:OR as there are no references to back any of it up. This is a fiction article not WP:BLP so claims even those without any references are usualy given a bit of breadth so I don't see why you're so clearly stonewalling. PeRshGo (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm stonewalling because you're attempting to add information about a real world group to a fictional character with literally zero evidence. The link you gave before has kind of a *wink-wink* *nudge-nudge* feel to it, like a fellow Mason would understand obviously why Daddy Warbucks is a Mason. But I look at (as a non-Mason) and don't understand at all. Wikipedia rules on Reliable Sources don't change just because the subject is fictional. If you were adding information that no one would deny, then you wouldn't need a source. But you're saying that secret codes in the comics indicate to insiders that DW is a Mason, with no explanation of what those codes are or how we can be certain it's correct. This is something which people (like myself) can deny. You need a citation, published by a reliable source (i.e., not a self-published source), to assert this, or it cannot be in the article. This could be an academic article analyzing Annie that found these symbols; or a non-Masonic article about Mason symbolism, that found that Annie used such symbolism; or an interview or other direct source from the author. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- The whole article has literally zero evidence and I don't see you attacking that. During that era that was as direct as people got with Masonic references. And if we were dealing with a real person a Masonic reference would be the ONLY acceptable one. The author was a Mason, we have 2 Masonic sources listing the character as a Mason given their obvious ability to understand the reference. I don’t see the problem. PeRshGo (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I see quite a number of reliable sources in the article. However, you are correct that the information could use more in line citations. When I have time, I'll try to do that, trimming out unsourced info. But nothing can change the fact that the citations you want to use don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. If a KKK group wrote an article in their own journal asserting that Fictional Character X is a secret KKK member, that wouldn't be reliable. If a Democratic party member wrote and article in their national briefing identifying Fictional Character Y as a secret Republican, that wouldn't be reliable. WP:Verifiability is very clear on this--we must have a reliable secondary source for anything that might be challenged. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- As a comparison, look at the article on Pulp Fiction. The Plot section (as in many movie articles) contains no references, because the information is not likely to be challenged (anyone watching the film can verify it). In the section Notable Motifs, however, a number of different hypotheses about several recurring themes in the movie are presented. In that case, each is backed up by a reliable source. In order to include the Masonic information in this article, you need similar sources. And by the rules of WP:RS, Wikipedia requires sources to be by independent, secondary sources, not self-published sources. I hope this helps clarify the distinction between material that is self-evident and material that requires sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- This may be because I'm used to editing real world subjects but when dealing with the real world a Grand Lodge IS considered a secondary source. This often comes up with notable individuals like George H. W. Bush. He was sworn in on a Masonic Bible, because of that several Wikipedians have come in and said that he is then obviously a Mason. This is not the case. No Grand Lodge has any record of him ever joining the Masons. On the flip side we have people like Joseph Smith, Jr.. There are plenty of Mormons who have tried to somehow hide the fact that he was a Mason. But there are Grand Lodge records that state he joined and those trump any desire to hide it. Now perhaps if I were saying that based on MY interpretation of that panel Warbucks served as Worshipful Master that would be one thing, but we have a Grand Lodge which verifies REAL people all the time saying that it's their interpretation that the author as a Mason would have known EXACTLY what he was saying. And frankly the fact that the average Wikipedian wouldn't see that is irrelevant. It was a message intended for Masons and we have a reliable Masonic source confirming it. PeRshGo (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- As a comparison, look at the article on Pulp Fiction. The Plot section (as in many movie articles) contains no references, because the information is not likely to be challenged (anyone watching the film can verify it). In the section Notable Motifs, however, a number of different hypotheses about several recurring themes in the movie are presented. In that case, each is backed up by a reliable source. In order to include the Masonic information in this article, you need similar sources. And by the rules of WP:RS, Wikipedia requires sources to be by independent, secondary sources, not self-published sources. I hope this helps clarify the distinction between material that is self-evident and material that requires sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm stonewalling because you're attempting to add information about a real world group to a fictional character with literally zero evidence. The link you gave before has kind of a *wink-wink* *nudge-nudge* feel to it, like a fellow Mason would understand obviously why Daddy Warbucks is a Mason. But I look at (as a non-Mason) and don't understand at all. Wikipedia rules on Reliable Sources don't change just because the subject is fictional. If you were adding information that no one would deny, then you wouldn't need a source. But you're saying that secret codes in the comics indicate to insiders that DW is a Mason, with no explanation of what those codes are or how we can be certain it's correct. This is something which people (like myself) can deny. You need a citation, published by a reliable source (i.e., not a self-published source), to assert this, or it cannot be in the article. This could be an academic article analyzing Annie that found these symbols; or a non-Masonic article about Mason symbolism, that found that Annie used such symbolism; or an interview or other direct source from the author. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- You do realize that nearly the entire article can be just as easily qualified as WP:OR as there are no references to back any of it up. This is a fiction article not WP:BLP so claims even those without any references are usualy given a bit of breadth so I don't see why you're so clearly stonewalling. PeRshGo (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right now you have two references to Masonic publications. Neither appears to be a Reliable Source, as they're both self-published (see WP:RS). Furthermore, the Grand Lodge BC site doesn't even work even if it is a reliable source, because it doesn't actually say anything about Daddy Warbucks being a Freemason. Both the comic and the description may imply something, although it's not clear to me exactly what they're implying. Perhaps to a Mason that info means something, but putting that inference onto Wikipedia counts as WP:OR. In order to include this information, you need a Reliable Source that explicitly states that, based on a specific comic or set of comics, we can tell that the artist intended Warbucks to be a Mason. I'm not going to pull that statement yet til I hear back from you or a day or two have passed, but, as it stands now, that's OR (I'll tag it as such). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)