User talk:Rory Van Tuyl

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Rory Van Tuyl! I am fetchcomms and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Â fetchcommsâ�� 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Van Tuyl for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Van Tuyl is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Tuyl until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Agricolae (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rory Van Tuyl. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Van Tuyl, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely mystified by this criticism. This is a historical article. I have no "conflict of interest". The article is not "about me". All information is verifiable. I would welcome your specific criticism so I could correct anything that needs fixing. But the above comment leaves me perplexed.Rory Van Tuyl (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see.

The article is about your family.

The article is based 99% on a book you wrote and distributed.

You've used the article to recruit for the Van Tuyl DNA Project.

Is that clearer now? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a historical family of which I happen to be one of thousands of living descendants. I was co-author of the book, a non-profit undertaking. Books were sold out years before there was a Wikipedia. There is no monetary issue or conflict-of-interest here. I am sorry for the "recruitment" language. that has now been removed. Rory Van Tuyl (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where the COI is a problem: "My family is really important because I published a book in which I say it is." You, as the Wikipedia editor, should not be using your own book as the sole source to write an article on your own family. You obviously think the family is important, because not only is it your family so you are going to think that, but you even wrote a book on it. However, maybe it's just you who thinks that. Material on Wikipedia ends up passing through three independent levels of evaluation: first by the author who compiles the material, then by the editor or peer reviewer who decides that the material is worthy of publication, and then by the Wikipedia editor who deems it appropriate for a page. The independence of these three levels of evaluation helps ensure the quality and notability of the material that appears, and helps to avoid an article representing what is just one person's skewed perspective. To protect this independent three-level review, Wikipedia has policies that restrict the use of self-published sources and that restrict editing when one has some personal connection to the subject. For this article, the author is you, the publisher is you, and the editor is you, so the safeguards inherent in these independent levels of evaluation are all lost. Agricolae (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To all concerned:

I have taken steps to address all of the objections to this article, and now request it be removed from the "Candidate for Deletion" status. 1. Objection to the DNA section: this section has been removed 2. Conflict of interest and single, self-published source: I have removed the objectionable source and replaced it with primary reference sources. 3. Subject not important enough. In the challenger's opinion, this is the case. One could challenge many Wikipedia pages on the subjective grounds of "importance" but is this really necessary or desirable in this case? This page received 4716 views over the last year (Sept 2012 - Aug 2013), about average for similar Wikipedia pages I sampled which are not being challenged. So it appears to be "important" to a number of Wikipedia viewers.

This article covers an important slice of Dutch and American history through the vehicle of one family's history. It is well-sourced and authoritatively researched. Changes have been made to address all substantive objections. I urge you to rescind the deletion status. Rory Van Tuyl (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While this gets away from the use of self-published sources but introduces other problems, as it runs afoul of prohibitions on original research and the reliance on primary records. Still, it is really just another version of the same problem - before we lacked the necessary levels of independent evaluation because you were playing three roles as Wikipedia editor, book publisher and author, while now you are the Wikipedia editor with no publisher or author, so it's still all you. You ensure us that the article covers an important topic, you assure us that it is well-sourced and authoritatively researched, but don't we all think that of our own research? That is why it is important that we have independent review, because one cannot be objective in evaluating one's own work. I know I have written scholarly articles that I thought were important, well-sourced and authoritatively researched, but a journal's reviewers thought otherwise. And that is why Wikipedia articles should not be based on the editors' own research. It relies on the independent evaluation of the publication process (by independent editors) to help vet the quality and notability of research, so that we don't have to depend on the assurances of the researchers or of individual Wikipedia editors. As I suggested on my Talk page, I think it would be helpful for you to participate in editing other pages, ones in which you do not have such a vested interest, to see how the collaborative process of article construction and revision takes place. Agricolae (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]