Jump to content

Talk:Gordon Novel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlikely

[edit]

It seems unlikely New York World's Fair section is about the same individual. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he was, this seems unusual for an FBI investigator. What does creator developer mean? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Novel was a former New Orleans private investigator, gun dealer and promoter who may be originally notable for his small role in the Garrison investigation. [1] The rest of the bio appears to be trying to make much WP:UNDUE about nothing. [2]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, most of the noteworthy claims here amount to "Novel claims that X, Y, and Z happened." I'm pretty sure a quick google search would provide with with an RS stating that "Novel is a friggin' lunatic who believes all manner of crazy crap!" JoelWhy? talk 14:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the subject's tendency toward self promotion and exaggeration, I have requested verification of the claims contained in New York World's Fair and cited only to a source that is not readily accessible. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to see you detail what makes you assess the subject has tendency toward self promotion and exaggeration. His role as creator/developer at the Louisiana Pavilion (at the 1964 New York World's Fair) is matter of public record. It surely would be nice to have extra verification about it, but to question it based on an assessment of "the subject's tendency toward self promotion and exaggeration" is an exaggeration by itself. DoorTablePhone (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What leads you to believe it is an exaggertion? Considering his many incredulous claims such as that of anti-gravity and breaking conservation of energy, I think it is reasonable to ask for extra clarification from the source (a quote from the source would be good for verification). I think the whole section is probably undue as it seems a relatively minor thing. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the subject claim he is breaking conservation of energy? You probably assume that based on erroneous interpretation of other claims, but it's not what he's claiming, but still this is not the point. The point is that it makes no sense to extrapolate a perception of exaggeration towards doubt about the claim of his involvement with the Louisiana Pavilion (at the 1964 New York World's Fair). DoorTablePhone (talk 12:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why asking for a quotation for verification is an issue, the quotation can be added to the citation template for verification purposes. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right about that.DoorTablePhone (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, the Weekly Variety articles[1][2] and the Editor & Publisher reference[3] showed that Gordon Novel used the name "G. Michael Novel" at the time. This probably was the reason for difficulty in verifying this story.DoorTablePhone (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'SRO' in N.Y. Fair's Amusement Area Spills Overflow Into States Sector". Weekly Variety. 16 October 1963. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  2. ^ "'Bourbon St.' Motif Cues More Epidermis Display at N. Y. Fair". Weekly Variety. 25 December 1963. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  3. ^ "Guide to World's Fair Publicity". Editor & Publisher. 18 April 1964. p. 144. Retrieved 25 September 2012.

POV tag?

[edit]

Article recently tagged without explanation. Since this article is the editor's first and only contribution to Wikipedia, they may want to review our policies on unsourced or poorly sourced material at WP:BLPSOURCES. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout his life, Novel was involved with many controversial investigations and has been connected to many cases were intelligence agencies were involved. It's highly unlikely that the truth about all of these matters can simply be extracted from mainstream sources in the public domain. On top of that, there were (and still are) many parties that had a stake in what's written about these cases and especially what the public opinion would think of Gordon Novel's role in the matters. DoorTablePhone (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia relies on the reliable sources. An article can't be biased if it sticks closely to what reliable sources say. You appear to be sounding very conspiratorial. If you think the reliable sources are biased that is not something we can counter on wikipedia, we will reflect what the reliable sources say. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool. What do you mean "sounding very conspiratorial"? Do you think conspiracies don't exist?DoorTablePhone (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By their very nature conspiracy theories are beliefs based on things for which there is not enough evidence (otherwise they would just be accepted facts and not conspiracy theories). Hence no, I do not believe in any specific conspiracy theory. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No no, that's not what I asked. I didn't wrote "conspiracy theories", I wrote "conspiracies".
Do you think that "conspiracies" don't exist? In the sense of; people going outside of their legal mandate and covertly cooperating towards a certain objective, which might have manipulative, if not criminal, qualifications.
Which I think is fair to ask, while you are accusing me of "sounding very conspiratorial", even though the subject at hand is traditionally the most common of such qualifications (e.g. controversial investigations with extreme forms of information distortion, conflicts between intelligence agencies about mandate, objectives, classification, etc).DoorTablePhone (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable sources

[edit]

OK, I'm not going to revert-war the insistence that "Freedom Forum" is a reliable source since "isn't used to refer to questionable information", however I can't guarantee other editors will be agreeable with this. Cheers, LuckyLouie (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what it's used for, it isn't a reliable source (I think you have the name wrong) and I've removed it. I've warned the editor for 3RR as I doubt that they know about it. My question is why remove other sources and replace it with that one? Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, other sources confirm the information anyway, this "American Freedom Magazine" would have just gave the information more substance. I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia policies, but have been looking into it right now. Thanks for the warning, will take it seriously. The other reference was duplicate. DoorTablePhone (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I would regard the Sun Journal article as complete gossip and attempt at character assassination. Referring to it might be regarded as in violation with WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. DoorTablePhone (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this source: [3]? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that source. The article makes unsourced/unverified claims. DoorTablePhone (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper articles don't show their sources, I presume you are not proposing that all the references in the article to newspapers should be removed, that would be the entire article gone. Note that sources don't have to show their sources, they just need to be regarded as reliable sources for the particular text we are verifying with them. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out even so-called 'reliable sources' can as well be distorted. Just discarding all information coming from a source like 'American Freedom Magazine' and taking everything for granted from a relatively tabloid-alike/character-assassination piece in the Sun Journal, is really fair practice.DoorTablePhone (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the Sun article isn't a reliable source in this particular case, take it to WP:RSN, but note that newspaper articles do not have to show their sources. I wouldn't bother with American Freedom Magazine as I can see no chance that that would be agreed to be a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you misunderstand. I think the specific article of the Sun Journal isn't reliable. That's something different then saying the whole of the Sun Journal isn't reliable. The opposite is the case with American Freedom Magazine. I don't argue that the whole of American Freedom Magazine is reliable, I argue that for the specific information (e.g. that Gordon Novel worked with Ramsey Clark and that the FLIR tape was a crucial piece of evidence in their case against the ATF) in the American Freedom Magazine is reasonably reliable. WP:IRS makes a important point out of "Context makes a difference", which I believe should be regarding for the use of American Freedom Magazine.DoorTablePhone (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant. We can be granular with reliable sources and look in this case at a specific artile. However, we can't be granular with sources that don't pass the criteria at WP:RSN (there might be some exceptions, maybe of a famous author published in a source that wasn't considered reliable we'd accept it, but that isn't the case here). Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I don't think it's granular when the Sun Journal is used to justify the piece that alleges that Novel originated the allegations. There were many who originally questioned the siege. It's not like Novel set-out some sort of bizarre meme, which only come down to "vague airy" allegations. There was a professional investigation, followed by a lawsuit led by a former United States Attorney General.DoorTablePhone (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the reason Novel was involved was because he was the first to talk about the FLIR tape? If not, what's the significance of his involvement in the case? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think that putting it like that again makes this sound as if it was an "airy" thing. Novel didn't just "talk" about a FLIR tape, there was a professional investigation by a team of people, led by Novel under the mandate of a former United States Attorney General. It wasn't a insignificant solo-action by Novel. The significance of Novel's involvement lays on the fact that he was 'chief investigator'. Further significance to the case is the eventual support given to this team by former Director of Central Intelligence William Colby
The FLIR tape was the initiating part, but during the investigation this team found out about the existence of the FLIR tape. I think the "airy" tone and claim of "Novel originated the allegations" is unfair/unreasonable to the subject. Maybe, I would also relate this to the selection criteria of "reliable references". Instead of confirming that this matter is controversial and references shouldn't be regarding as either an arbiter of truth (even though they write in tabloid-like fashion) or complete conspiratorial nonsense, I think the current treatise of mere inclusion of "reliable references" diminishes the possible quality of this article.DoorTablePhone (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're saying. You don't feel that this article should conform to the encyclopedia's reliable sources policy? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I'm saying. The reliability policy makes a point about context: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context". In addition to that, the policy makes a point about common sense and editorial judgment. Then consider that the Sun Journal basically copied the first few sections of the San Antonio Express News, rephrased and removed some details but left out the whole rest of the article (which importantly set the first few sections in context). The Sun Journal basically reduced the relatively balanced 'San Antonio Express News' article into a cheap attack piece. Still, under Dougweller and LuckyLouie interpretation of the reliability criteria, it's perfectly reasonable to use the Sun article as reliable reference. DoorTablePhone (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A new dilemma regarding reliable sources has now appeared in reported about Novel's death. The Project Camelot Portal surely isn't a reliable source for any information... but could an exception be made for reporting the mere fact that the man has died? It's unlikely any mainstream (or otherwise "reliable source") will report on his death, which would make it extremely difficult to get this info into Wikipedia. Is in this case WP:IAR applicable? Any suggestions/demands?DoorTablePhone (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a person who passes our general notability guidelines would have their obituary published in somewhere other than their own website. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not all persons passing the our general notability guidelines have their obituary published on their "own website", or even published at all. Also, Project Camelot Portal is not "their own website".DoorTablePhone (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source which doesn't make WP:RS, reporting on his death: http://www.jerrypippin.com/. DoorTablePhone (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I've just removed some self-published material and some links to photocopies. Please do not replace these - go to WP:RSN if you think they can be justified by our polices, but remember WP:BLP. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ufologist

[edit]

The infobox mentions that the subject is a ufologist, but there is no citation anywhere in the article pertaining to his involvement as such. This, as well as the large UFO nav box at the bottom, should be removed if there is no appropriate sourcing. Location (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least one accepted source mentioned his interests in UFOs and Area 51; the Dick Reavis article in the San Antonio Express News, "Conspiracy dreams are an FBI nightmare". Apart from that, there are a ton of unaccepted sources, including about 9 online interviews ([4]) and his 'Supreme Cosmic Secret' book.DoorTablePhone (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

motion picture directing at the pasedena playhouse?

[edit]

gordon novel may have engaged in "motion picture directing" at one or more of the major or minor studios. he may have engaged in directing PLAYS at the pasedena playhouse. but i doubt that he ever engaged in "motion picture directing" at the pasedena playhouse. i don't think that the pasedena playhouse, as an entity, ever was engaged in the production of motion pictures. nor did the playhouse rent out its stage or stages for motion picture production. i doubt that the facilities for motion picture production were ever available at the pasedena playhouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.9.233 (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gordon Novel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gordon_Novel&oldid=1195559625"