Talk:Malabar Farm State Park

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Mid-importance).

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malabar Farm State Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Discuss the fire content here. Statements such as "The Ohio Inspector General investigated the barn fire after the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources chose to whitewash any ineptitude and culpability by Park management." appear to be an editor's opinion. Or is this from a published source? David notMD (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malabar Facts recently inserted content about a 1994 barn fire, the cost of repairs, and the investigation of these events. This was sourced to Ohio Inspector General Report #94-42-IG Dated December 22, 1994. That would appear to be a primary source. It is apparently not available online, or at least I was not able to find an online version. It would presumably be a primary source and as such should be used only with care and for direct facts, not for implications or interpretations. I question whether the term "Whitewash" appears in the source, for example. The disputed passages directly implicate a living person, the Chief of Parks at the time of the fire, in improper action. This is not by any standard well-sourced, and so under WP:BLP I have removed it. I have done so the more readily because Malabar Facts reinstated the content after another editor reverted, rather than coming here as per WP:BRD. The content was also in an incorrect place withing the article, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the same edits, Malabar Facts inserted, and reinserted over a revert, content about an "investigation of spring house untreated water". This was sourced to Ohio Inspector General report ID file #2013-CA00059 and to Letter from OEPA to ODNR dated December 20, 2013. These sources are apparently only available at Richland County(OH) Health Dept (although an FoI request might obtain copies), and I, of course, have not been able to verify them as yet. Again, these would appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources. They are probably at least technically published. This passage did not involve a BLP issue, but was so phrased as to fall afoul of WP:NPOV in my view. I removed this second passage in the same edit as he first. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I invite all editors, including Malabar Facts, to discuss in this talk page section the appropriateness of including this information in some form in this article. If any other editor is able to verify the quoted sources, that would be helpful. In the spirit of WP:BRD I strongly urge Malabar Facts not to attempt to reinstate the challenged passages prior to discussion here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that Malabar Facts posted " I am the source and initiator of the investigations that are quoted." Clearly, this is an undeclared conflict of interest (WP:COI). I recommend that MF describe on own User page the nature of the conflict of interest. I also recommend that MF join the discussion here rather than continuing attempts to directly edit the article. David notMD (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Malabar Facts might consider tipping a newspaper or tv station and, if were developed into a newspaper or magazine article or some other news content, perhaps such an article could be included in the article... if Malabar Facts disclosed the conflict of interest and/or asked another editor to do it. I would do it myself. Using primary sources, especially when one points at a living person, does not seem like a viable option for the article. I am not opposed to incorporating such information if it can be found in a reliable, independent secondary source--indeed, it might then even be quite appropriate to include it. I just don't see how we can skip from primary source to tertiary source. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39 What might be done to encourage an outside investigation and secondary reporting is really not relevant here. Here we are discussing what should or should not go into the Wikipedia article. If an investigation happens and is reported on by secondary sources, that might well be included here, depending on the sources. If one has already happened and secondary sources about it can be cited, even better. Also, the original fare was apparently in 1994, more than 25 years ago. I rather doubt a TV station or newspaper is going to be interested, although one never knows. But those sourts of publications are mostly focused on more current events. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

A concern: User: Malabar Facts initiated controversial changes to the article and so far has not joined the discussion on the Talk page or on own Talk page. On 17 January a new editor User:Bromfield's Conscience restored what MF has been trying to create. This was the first ever edit by Bromfield's Conscience. Given that, the choice of editor names for both accounts and the critical nature of the Edit summary, I suspect this is the same person as Malabar Facts, trying to avoid being temporarily blocked under the Edit warring rule. David notMD (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]