This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture 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.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
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.
I've been admonished that information can't come from somebody's website, yet much of the "credible" and "verifiable" information posted on Wikipedia re: E. M. Viquesney's Spirit of the American Doughboy and Spirit of the American Navy statues is worded quite similarly to our website, The E. M. Viquesney Spirit of the American Doughboy Database, and never appeared on Wikipedia until long after our original site went up in 2002. And as for the Smithsonian being a "credible" source: There are 23 Doughboy statues listed on SIRIS as Viquesney Doughboys, which are either nonexistent or by another sculptor, and there are many true Viquesney Doughboys that aren't on the SIRIS list that are irrefutably photo documented as such on our website. Thus, our Viquesney Doughboy website IS the only credible source of information on this subject and is quouted and cited quite often by everybody else, including Wikipedia. 76.166.164.183 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say information can't come from somebody's website. I said it can't come from your word and a phone call. Self-published websites aren't great sources, but for lack of better ones, sometimes they're all we have. I meant no disrespect to your site - I used it to write much of the original entry for the Doughboy article, and it is listed in the references there. But, yes, on a whole the Smithsonian is more authoritative than your site. It's the Smithsonian. You say they're wrong about some things (and I do, too, actually) but that's not necessarily enough. Your photos aren't "irrefutable"; we have only your word that they were taken where you say they were. I have no reason to doubt it, obviously, but those rules are there for a reason. Lots of crazies out there on the Internet. Anybody can have a website.
In this case, though, the Smithsonian doesn't say there isn't a statue in that store. So as long as your website is the source, and as long as the community here generally finds your site credible, that works for me. But you have to show where it is on your website; the information you inserted earlier cited the same Smithsonian source as the other statues, and that's not accurate. If you post the address of your page here, I'll insert it properly and set up a citation for it. Thanks again. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Found it. Added Pentwater to the list and cited doughboysearcher. Added a few other sources, too. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)