Template:Did you know nominations/Brian Brushwood

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Brian Brushwood

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Brian Brushwood (pictured) had one of his magic tricks performed aboard the International Space Station?

• ALT1:... that Brian Brushwood (pictured) walked away from his job designing computer systems to perform magic full-time?
• ALT2:... that Brian Brushwood (pictured) teaches people how to use magic to "scam" free drinks?

5x expanded by Obsidianspider (talk). Self nominated at 11:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

• Comment as a fan of Brushwood I declare that I have a conflict of interest in reviewing this page. I have let the subject know that the page is up for nomination. Hasteur (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• - Appears to be a 3x expansion... I'm not really a stickler, but I'm not a regular here so I don't know how much we can fudge it. We have nearly a 7x increase in sources and this is a BLP, but the original article wasn't exactly unsourced... Second opinion anyone? -Thibbs (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• In the edit before expansion (June 17), the character count was 1105. In the latest edit (August 18), the character count was 6184. This is more than a 5x expansion and qualifies for a DYK review. (The character count does not include charts.) Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I was accidentally counting charts and lists as prose. My mistake. So...

Y Article is "new" (5x expansion)

Y Long enough (>1500 words)

Y? Cited hook - ALT1 is properly cited via kstatecollegian.com (FN4) but I don't see anything on the topic in the Huffington post piece that is slapped on as FN5. Maybe remove FN5 or move it elsewhere? Sourcing is shaky for the original hook. Specifically, the Skepticality ref (FN3) resolves in a 403 error (though it's available via archive.org) and I'm generally leery of using primary sources in the way they are used here. I don't see any direct sources for ALT2. But anyway ALT1 is fine via FN4.

Y? Within policy - I'm not in love with the reliance on primary sources (more than 1/4 of the sources are youtube, testtube, etc. links to his actual shows and not secondary sources about his shows), and I'll have to AGF on the various talk shows (Footnotes 19-30), but there's nothing that is blatantly outside of policy.

Y QPQ - Nom did not review anything else, but this is his first DYK so he's exempt.

Y Hook properly formatted.

Y Hook content POV-neutral and interesting.

Y Image is CC-licensed, but lacking author info...

- Please fix the link with the 403 error and then we can roll with ALT1. -Thibbs (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Thibbs: We don't use the green approval tick until the nomination is approved. I inserted a question mark in the meantime. Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was giving approval. A little cleanup would be preferred but I don't know if it's necessary to meet DYK's eligibility criteria. The broken link relates to the original hook, but I think the sources following ALT1 adequately satisfy criterion #3 (cited hook). As a whole the article is less than perfect, but I don't think it falls outside of policy (criterion #4) as it stands. Anyway I appreciate the oversight, Yoninah. I haven't done too many DYK reviews yet. :) -Thibbs (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Update: The Skepticality source is back online now. It may have just been a momentary hiccup. Might be worthwhile setting up an archived version, but it's not necessary to pass DYK as I understand it. -Thibbs (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've taken another look at the article and I see a few more problems. To recap I've already pointed out that FN5a (appearing after the ALT1 hook) doesn't in fact seem to relate to the claim made in ALT1. FN4 does cover the hook, but it's not perfect. The hook makes the claim that Brushwood's job was "designing computer systems" whereas FN4 simply states "Brushwood was working in the computer industry when he decided to try performing full-time." The line in the article is even less supported by FN4 and FN5a, but it is well supported by FN1 which is reffed several times throughout that paragraph. So to get the hook properly sourced, please replace FN5a with FN1.
  In the meanwhile, the over-use of primary sourcing is illustrated by FN5b where the extent of this source's support for "Brushwood's first national television appearance was on the April 18, 2000 episode of The Roseanne Show talk show where he performed the trick of shoving a nail in one eye and having it pop out the other." is "I got booked on Roseanne's daytime talk show." Apparently the rest of the claim is supposed to be supported by the Roseanne show itself (i.e. FN19 - The Roseanne Show. 18 April 2000. CBS.). The problem is that "he performed the trick of shoving a nail in one eye and having it pop out the other" is an interpretive claim. It's not exceptionally original researchy, but it's really not supported by a claim made in any cited source. Perhaps everyone would agree after watching the show that indeed "he performed the trick of shoving a nail in one eye," but that's not the same as locating a source that actually makes that claim. The article is full of examples like that.
  FN7 is also broken and the archived version doesn't seem to support the claim it is next to: "Brushwood started his professional stage show in 1999".
  @Obsidianspider: please review and address these suggestions. -Thibbs (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I'm not sure what Obsidianspider is up to but he hasn't been editing much lately. Any interest in addressing some of my concerns? -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thibbs: Obsidianspider is a friend (and a new editor) who I have offered to help with this DYK. After reviewing your comments, I have included FN1 at the FN5a location instead of replacement. I hope the addition and not replacement is acceptable to you. Obsidianspider and I will look at FN19 next per your suggestion. -Kyle^(talk) 05:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In review of FN7, the source dated 2009 states "I spent the last 10 years touring and performing live." This does appear to support the claim of touring and performing starting in 1999. -Kyle^(talk) 06:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Khamar: Thanks for addressing this, Kyle. It would have been a shame to let it expire given the obvious work involved by the expanding editor and the fact that the subject of the article had apparently been notified. Anyway, let's dig in:

• (1) I appreciate the addition of FN1 at the appropriate location. I would again suggest removing FN5a from that spot because the claim really doesn't need 3 cites and as you may know the use of more than 2 citations within an article often gives the appearance that the issue is a controversial one. But that's ultimately a minor matter and you don't have to act on that if you don't want to.
• (2) Regarding FN7, I see what you mean now. I'm not sure if my ISP has been acting up or what, but the link was broken when I posted my comment and now it seems to be working again. You'll notice above that the same thing happened for me with FN3. Very strange. Anyway it's not a great source since the 1999 date is calculated from subtracting the figure in the "for the last 10 years" line from the date of the piece "Jun 22, 2009" whereas in causal use people tend to throw around 5 and 10 year increments rather imprecisely. I suppose it's better than claiming that Brushwood began his career on 22 June 1999, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Brushwood was just speaking off the cuff and the real date was 1998 or 2000. Anyway perhaps it will do. Hopefully bringing it to the eyes of millions via the frontpage will allow for the introduction of more direct sourcing if any exists.
• (3) I continue to disapprove of the use of interpretive probable non-claims as sources, but ultimately I haven't watched the footage of "The Roseanne Show. 18 April 2000. CBS." so perhaps some announcer type says something like "And now ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Brushwood will perform the trick of shoving a nail in one eye and having it pop out the other!" If an actual claim is made like that then it's fine. A source is intended to act as authority for a claim so if an actual claim is made then the claimant acts as the authority. I just worry that the authority may instead be intended to come from a hoped-for agreement between the Wikipedia reader and the Wikipedia editor author. That kind of a claim is improper. Again I haven't seen the Rosanne show so Kyle, if you and Obsidianspider think that FN19 and the others like it are fine given this then I'll AGF that they are within policy and we can give it a pass for this DYK. -Thibbs (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay. Thanks for looking over all of this and thanks to @Khamar: for assisting me as I'm new to the DYK process. I'll look into the rest of the concerns you raised. Obsidianspider (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• I understand the concern about claims made regarding Brushwood's appearance on the Roseanne Show. There is a video clip of the appearance on the Internet, but unfortunately it is hosted on Brushwood's site and is in the antiquated Real Player format. Since I'm certain the event took place I felt it was best to cite the program itself and not link to the video hosted on Bruswood's site. Please approve the DYK unless further blocking clarifications remain. Obsidianspider (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Obsidianspider: The concern is not only about FN19 (the Roseanne episode), but about footnotes 19 through 30 (more than a quarter of those used in the article). And it's not about format/linking, it's about whether or not they violate WP:OR which bars "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." I don't have access to the specific episodes so what I'm asking is whether the claims in the Wikipedia article are in fact stated in the episodes or whether they represent your own analysis. If they are stated in the episodes then I'd be happy to assume good faith and give it a pass. -Thibbs (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Thibbs: There was no interpretation or analysis on my part. Brushwood appeared on those shows and performed various magic tricks. Did he actually shove a nail in his eye? I can't speak to that, but that's the trick he performed. If that makes sense. Obsidianspider (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Obsidianspider: Sorry if I was unclear above. I just need a yes or no on this: Are the claims in the Wikipedia article which as supported by footnotes 19 through 30 in fact stated in the cited episodes? -Thibbs (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Thibbs:Yes Obsidianspider (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hook ALT1 now fully reffed. AGF re: "within policy" for unverified sources. All the rest (5x, QPQ, etc.) verified on 14 Sept. This is good to go! -Thibbs (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)