User talk:EMEONE

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Concealed carry in the United States, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikidenizen (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concealed carry

I have reverted your edits to concealed carry, but I think you are acting in good faith. 5 Paragraphs in the lede of the article, based on one guys book/site/opinion is WP:UNDUE. You could make a stand alone article for this guy/his book/opinions (if he and the book passes WP:GNG and has been discussed in WP:RS. You could perhaps incclude a few sentences in this article but what you have included so far is way too much, especially without citations. Respond here if you have questions on how/what do to, or want to discuss this additionGaijin42 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some google searching, and there are no WP:RS discussing Longknecker or his book. This re-enforces the WP:UNDUE nature of your additions. A section on the increase in gun purchases is fine, but it should include MANY sources, not just 5 paragraphs, uncited, about guy who is not WP:NOTABLE. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Google Safer Streets 2012, 2011 and 2010, John Longenecker, Examiner, The CPR Corollary.

A google news search on "John Longnecker" returns 0 results that weren't written BY john longnecker. a general google search does return some hits, but all blogs. blogs are not WP:RELIABLESOURCES. The examiner is EXPLICITLY NOT a reliable source according to wikipedia. Even if this guy was notable on this topic (say at the level of Massad Ayoob), it would still not justify 5 paragraphs in the lede of this article. A section on the increase in concealed carry over time is a GREAT idea. But it must include multiple people statements, backed up by reliable sources. Longnecker can have a sentence or two there, but it cant be an article/section just regurgitating one person's views. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Believe you me, this is why I left Examiner after two years. Other venues of mine are Brietbart.com and conservative sites, not to mention Premier Radio Networks, Dr. Laura, Lou Dobbs and about 200 other guest bookings on talk radio for two earlier books.

I can redo the contribution to Wikipedia to a few sentences. Let me reduce it to pure relevance to the topic concealed carry, for instance my analysis of why gun sales rose so sharply and their CCW applications as well. This is more than opinion, it is an expert analysis, if you would, please. Yes, I do mention my presence on the blogosphere, and I don't care for Examiner a whole lot, but I am a known authority on this subject.

Can I post a few lines?

Are you John Longnecker? if so, that raises some additional problems. Your own research is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and blogs in general are not reliable because they are self-published without the same level of editorial oversight (WP:SPS). Additionally, putting in a big section about yourself is generally considered promotional the result of the interaction of these several policies is that others can make edits using your book as a source (assuming your book is a reliable source) - in general you cannot. - I stand corrected on this point, you can use your own work as a reference, as long as it is otherwise reliable/notable.
the radio shows are better, but they need to be WP:VERIFIABLE. Are there transcripts available somewhere (preferablly on the radio show's site?). every addition must have WP:CITATIONS from WP:RELIABLESOURCES so it is WP:VERIFIABLE, so the way you previously just mentioned the book and then had 5 paragraphs of prose is not acceptable.
For this particular article, content must be specifically addressing concealed carry, reasons why gun sales may have increased not directly related to CCW, would be off topic (but could be appropriate in another article such as Gun politics in the United States.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thank you for asking. I have links to talkradio webpages who have posted my appearance: 1. http://www.freestufftimes.com/contests/12/dr-lauras-safe-streets-sweepstakes/ 2. Lou Dobbs, Page 1 toward the bottom of the page... http://www.loudobbs.com/pg/jsp/community/booksmentionedarchive.jsp?start=0&showall=1 3. George Noory, booked for four hours on the air, once for an hour and the very next nmorning booked for three more hours for 30 days later. The biggest letter writers to the show were Chicago Police officers asking for another show. They got it. See: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/longenecker-john/7114
I was invited to these shows and hundreds of others because of the relevance to the home. These are mainstream shows, not gun shows. (I get enough of those!)
So there are two things the radio shows can do 1) prove that you or your books are notable 2) verify the content of the article text (by being able to quote you from a reliable source) . The links you provided there do some work towards #1, but nothing at all towards #2. Do the radio shows keep transcripts or recordings that could be used as a reference?
there is still the problem of WP:UNDUE as well, a big section simply regurgitating your opinion is not encyclopedic (unless it is an article about you or your book). The viewpoints of many people must be aggregated together to give a balanced view. Even if the other people are saying the exact same thing as you, we need to spread around the opinions so that our readers can easily identify that we are not being biased and are presenting a Neutral point of view. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. And thanks for your involvement. I have permission from World Networks to share an mp3 of my show with Lou Dobbs. His producer contacted me when he read my article on how the second amendment is the primary indicator of the overall health of the nation. The show leads with that lede when I am brought up on the air. I can send this to you from my own collection. It is one of the shorter, more digestible appearances and may be useful for your purpose. Where would you like me to direct this?

In order to be used as a source for wikipedia, the recording needs to be available to all editors (preferably online, but libraries or other archives are acceptable as well) so that others may establish its WP:VERIFIABLITY. Prefereably hosted by somewhere reliable (lou dobs own site would be best). If you host it yourself, it always raises the possibility that you have edited it, which therefore reduces its value as a reliable source. (I am not accusing you of editing anything, merely that we have this policy to avoid the possiblity of this accusation in all situations).
I have asked for some assistance regarding your edits, because I want to make sure I am giving you proper guidance, so someone else may pop in here shortly. I am afraid I think that the bulk of your edit to the CCW page (and likely to golden hour) likely are not in compliance with the spirit of some of our policies and guidelines, and will likely be removed. However, I don't want to discourage you - wikipedia is explicitly looking to recruit subject matter experts to edit topics that they are experts in, so you are very welcome here - but the experts cant really quote themselves, because they are not neutral editors of their own opinions/statements, and always risk being seen as promotional. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It may be helpful to read Wikipedia:Expert_editors as I think it addresses your situation fairly directly. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to agree with Gaijin. The addition to Concealed carry in the United States is indeed not proper in the lead, which should summarize the main article rather than introduce one minor point, important as it may be. Moreover, the reference given is simply not a reliable source by our standards (and one might easily call it promotional, since it is an invitation to buy a book--a self-published book, from the looks of it), even if the author were a recognized expert. Besides, there are some writing issues--some mechanical, others related to tone (not neutral enough). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was reverted here was done so correctly: Wikipedia is not the place for original research, analysis, or commentary. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your advice and decision as fair and reasonable. It makes sense to me. Thank you for your personal time and for your clarity.

Thanks for being so open to criticism and guideance! This usually does not go as well. As I stated above, we are actively trying to recruit experts, so I encourage you to stay and contribute, but stick ot things that have been covered in reliable sources and avoid your own research as much as possible. (Obviously I understand that your energy goes to where it is most beneficial to you, so our rules may not make that a good trade-off for you. In that case, good luck!) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Best to you. JL


Golden hour (medicine)

Hi EMEONE, some of the same concerns as above: You've added passages of unsourced text; rather, self-sourced text. I've not removed the content because I've no quarrel with its substance, and I presume you know the subject thoroughly. But it's problematic to add content without including published sources, and as such it probably won't have a long shelf life here. Can you provide a published reference? Thank you, JNW (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: I have removed the text, and encourage discussion at the article's talk page [1]. JNW (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I need a policy clarification, please: I am an authority in my own right. I am credentialed by the County of Los Angeles and I am an established author and speaker. I know that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, but it is presumed to be a source of information, self-sourced or not. The value of my contributions on talkradio and other media are for their insight, not opinion. Analysis clarifies - self-sourced or not - and it is hardly fair or reasonable to revert contributions because they may differ. It is how knowledge advances. Put another way, I am not wrong in my contribution on The Golden Hour.

You refer to my history of this 'issue' I noticed that it began with a political position (knowledge) on second amendment topics. A lot of experts are self-sourced, but they are deemed to be experts for their insights as their credentials and contributions of record. In fact, almost by definition, every expert is self-sourced and judged by readers, audiences and followers as such. Any research you do should find me to be such an authority, and I would appreciate your reinstating my content as soon as possible.

I've encouraged further discussion at the article's talk page. There are issues re: neutrality of tone and original research, as well as self-citing. JNW (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your patience and your time, but I think you're overlooking something. Self-sourcing is not a bar to being a contributor. Wikipedia is filled with lesser qualified content by far, and especially unanswered views in this topic. In my experience - a decade of seeing the patient before the physician does - the topic is substantially different; it is also different among nations, such as America and Europe. The subject deserves the alternate viewpoint from an experienced professional who has seen it work as opposed to one who claims that that it does not and without substantiation. [Citing the book [reference 5] does not affirm his viewpoint; Forgive my being blunt, but if you are going to talk about tone, I would mention that Dr. Bledsoe's tone is distinctly hostile to the concept. It would be nice to post an opposing view.

I have often written that Paramedics are the SWAT of EMS. We are the specialists who are in a unique position to know and do what physicians awaiting the patient cannot know, see, or do; not until they have the patient. Paramedics as faculty often train the next generation, handing them the DNA of their experience over what other medical professionals could only partially contribute until the formation of field EMS.

I also need to point out that Dr. Bledsoe appears in this article and is self-sourced [ Footnote 5 is his own article! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12078402 ] The fact that he is published in a medical periodical is irrelevant. I am also published in various outside periodicals, including worldwide online publications.

As an authority on this subject, I would very much like to be reinstated, please, on the grounds that Bledsoe (self-sourced) appears and that I contribute the opposing view under 'Controversy' readers are entitled to read.

At some time or another, we are all in emergency and in need of care. Which would you believe: that urgency is vital or that it is a myth?

Please revisit this and let me know your decision.

With respect, JL

Hi, I've requested further input from an administrator who contacted you last year. The passage related to controversies is the opposing view. No Wikipedia article is intended to be a forum for debate; indeed, the controversy section begins by saying most medical professionals agree that delays in definitive care are undesirable. A discussion as to whether Dr. Bledsoe's article is a reliable source is a separate issue, and that, too, may be brought to the article's talk page. Self-sourcing is a difficulty if it appears in essay-like form and is unsupported by citations. Thanks, JNW (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's fine, but Bledsoe's citation is himself.

I understand that this is not a forum for debate, but my submission is not debate; it is substantive education of the reader within an encyclopedia. I know Wikipedia pages which are far more lengthy than this one.

I don't intent to enlarge on the submission, this would be adequate if approved. If you'd like me to edit it further, I would do that. But our purpose is to educate, and I believe that my submission gives relevance to the topic above and beyond mere definition of what it is. I also believe that my submission rounds it out as more comprehensive. I believe that if the reader wants to know more, I can put a link in a footnote.

Meanwhile, let me know.

TIA, J


J

Let me know

  • Well, I have little to add but a link: [Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. Information needs to be verifiable, and the sources for that verification must be reliable publications. Your expertise is not a published source. It is no different than was discussed a year ago. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's very helpful and thoughtful. I will visit that guideline and adhere to it.

Regards,

J

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:EMEONE"