Talk:Garnet Bailey

At issue is the information in the Death and legacy section that follows mention of where Bailey's name is at the National 9/11 memorial:

After the Los Angeles Kings won the 2012 Stanley Cup, David Krasne, a Kings fan in New York City, placed a Stanley Cup champions hat on Mark Bavis and Bailey's names at the Memorial.^[1] Krasne visited the National September 11 Memorial on the very same day as the Kings parade and placed his Stanley Cup Champions cap between their names and tweeted; "As a kings fan in NYC, I couldn't let Mark Bavis or Ace Bailey miss the festivities."^[2][3]

User: 72.86.145.77 removed the material, saying in his/her edit summary, "Delete the unseemly self-promotion by a random fan (Krasne)".

The material in question is not "self-promotion", because it was reported by at least two secondary sources, CBS Los Angeles, which is a local affiliate of CBS, and the NESN, which is also a notable source. This is one of the fundamental bases upon which the inclusion of material on Wikipedia is validated. If the source in question was Krasne himself, or some outlet that published his writings--that would be self promotion. Since others reported on it, it is not. Since the section is about the subject's legacy, adding it appropriate, and thus I restored the material on that basis.

72.86.145.77 then again removed it, saying in his edit summary, "The info deleted has little to do with Bailey, excessive in length, out of proportion to this entry and to its minimal significance". Again, the section in question is about Bailey's legacy--that is, what influence or affect he and his life have had on others, which continues on after his death. The material in question is a direct example of that, and therefore, saying that it has "little to do with Bailey" is false, as it's entirely to do with him. As far as being "excessive in length, out of proportion to this entry and to its minimal significance", just look at it above. It takes up 81 words. That's a third of the section, and a tiny portion of the article. Calling it excessive or out of proportion is not supported by simply looking at it. I restored it on that basis.

72.86.145.77 then again removed it, saying in his edit summary, "Undone for previous reason. I suspect that Nightscreamtalk is another screen name for the banned editor who added this nonsense to begin with." According to the article's edit history, an editor named User:SNIyer12 was the one who first added the material, in a set of three edits on June 18 and July 8 of last year. I am not SNLyer12, never heard of him until today, and have never engaged in sockpuppetry. Anyone who looks through my edit history can see the extent of the work I've done on many different 9/11-related articles, which I began to take an interest in when I first starting taking photos of the names at the National 9/11 Memorial's North Pool and South Pool. I have no interest in hockey, or sports at all. 72.86.145.77, for his/her part, offers nothing in the way of evidence for this accusation, which is not only a blatant violation of WP:AGF, but irrelevant to the content issue in question. But if anyone wishes to open a CheckUser case and check my IPs, I welcome it.

72.86.145.77 also left this unsigned message on my talk page:

Hey fool, the NHL link does not mention either Krasne or Bailey. It's irrelevant. The fact that you're digging in to retain it, irrelevant as it is, suggests to me that you like to bicker just to bicker. The link you refer to as reporting by "CBS News" is just a local story by a CBS TV affiliate in LA. It's very unseemly to devote that large a proportion of a short article to nearly meaningless gesture by a self-aggrandizing fan 10 years after Bailey's death. I note that it took more than a year for anybody even to add this trivial info to Bailey's article. Bailey's career matters to hockey fans. Krasne doesn't.

Putting aside the fact that 72.86.145.77 is now violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA by addressing another editor as "fool", the NHL matter is a minor issue. The other source in question is NESN, not NHL, so that was a minor error on my part. I checked the sources, saw that two of them mentioned Krasne, and accidentally referred incorrectly to one of them.

That the CBS source is "just a local story by a CBS TV affiliate in LA" is completely irrelevant. CBS is still CBS, and thus, it's a reliable source by any interpretation of WP:IRS, and as aforementioned, that affiliate even has its own Wikipedia article.

As for 72.86.145.77's note that the event happened more than 10 years after Bailey's death, and that the material was added "more than a year" after the event in question, the second claim is false, and the first is irrelevant. The material, as mentioned above, was added in June and July of last year, in edits that were made one week and one month after the Finals, not "more than a year". But this is moot anyway. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a constant work in progress. It is not a newspaper, so when a given event happened is completely irrelevant to whether mention of it merits inclusion. If it did, then you'd have to eliminate mention of any event that occurred earlier than the year 2000, from the creation of the universe to the election of Vladimir Putin, since Wikipedia didn't exist prior to 2001. To get an idea the implications of this, consider that the Memorial itself did not open until September 12, 2011, which is precisely 10 years after Bailey died. Should mention of it be removed?

As for 72.86.145.77's comment that "Bailey's career matters to hockey fans. Krasne doesn't", again, the effect that that career had on his fans is what the word "legacy" means. That two different reliable secondary sources thought it was significant enough to report on it, in relation to a significant series of SC Finals, means that it is not unreasonable for us to do so. Tell me, 72.86.145.77, what do you think goes in a legacy section?

I welcome input from 72.86.145.77 and others. If a consensus of editors thinks it should be left out, then I'll accept that. For now:

Keep Nightscream (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I've got no issue with the content and it's appropriately sourced. It's no more or less relevant that Dennis Leary wearing a t-shirt on his TV show, as far as I'm concerned. PKT(alk) 18:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• While this is a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of things, it's just given one short paragraph and thus isn't getting undue weight, and while I've changed the citation information to KCBS-TV itself, rather than claiming the entire CBS network as the publisher, it is validly sourced. Either way, I really don't see this as a problem, and don't think it's worth the ruckus that the anon is raising over it. If it were being placed right in the lede, as if it were the single most important thing that a reader needed to know about Bailey, then there'd be a more obvious issue — but placed where it is and written how it's written, there's simply nothing wrong with it. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep/Explanation The CBS source cannot be claimed as if it was the entire network in this case; CBS Corporation maintains a singular website for its local media properties in each city where it owns television and/or radio stations. In Los Angeles, CBS owns KCBS-TV (which is the only property that is part of the CBS television network in that city, being an owned-and-operated station of the network), KCAL-TV (an independent station which shares a news department and some programming with KCBS) and five radio stations such as KNX (AM), KCBS-FM and KROQ-FM. A news article from a television or radio station in any event counts as a reliable source. TVtonightOKC (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep While in itself, it seems a pretty insignificant event, it has been covered by reputable, independent sources and speaks in a way to the importance and legacy of the man. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a very long way of saying "I want to have my way." So very, very important to keep the nearly irrelevant information, because nobody else besides Krasne thought to honor Bailey after the SC win. Oh, they did?

"Eleven years after the Los Angeles Kings lost two of their own in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the team made sure the families of Garnet "Ace" Bailey and amateur scout Mark Bavis had their day with the Stanley Cup.

Bailey, the team's director of pro scouting, and Bavis had been heading from Boston to Los Angeles for the Kings' organizational meetings when their United 175 flight was hijacked and crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

On Sunday, the Cup was brought to the 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero in New York, where the families of Bailey and Bavis got a chance to take part in the first championship in franchise history. Kings general manager Dean Lombardi was also there.

The Kings arranged to bring the Cup to the memorial in New York and posed it there, next to the engraved names of Bailey and Bavis. Some fans had paid their own tributes to the two soon after L.A.'s triumph in June by putting Kings caps and other team memorabilia near their names at the memorial."

http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=11596#

Such officious, self-appointed guardians of the Wikipedia flame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.10 (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"That's a very long way of saying 'I want to have my way'" No, it's a way of debunking the multiple fallacies in your arguments, and addressing your inability to follow Wikipedia policy. "Getting one's way" is a meaningless accusation, since everyone wants to "have their way" in an argument. Are you saying that you don't want to have your way? Did you suddenly reverse your position? Of course not.

"...because nobody else besides Krasne thought to honor Bailey after the SC win" This is your own inference, and nothing found in anything that I or anyone else has said. You want to add other examples of honors bestowed upon Bailey? Then go ahead and add them. Instead, all you do is provide a url here, but refuse to add it to the actual article, which I ended up doing. You, meanwhile, appear content to simply complain and attack anyone who doesn't agree with you. Who's acting more like a troll?

As for your rants on my talk page:

"Ha ha, you make snide comments to others but heaven forefend that anybody respond in kind." What "snide" comment on my part are you referring to? The only one who had engaged in false accusations and name-calling is you.

"Somebody adds the RELEVANT info that Bailey scored a game-winning goal in the '72 Stanley Cup Finals, and you immediately delete it. Why? Because the editor didn't supply a citation for this EASILY VERIFIED FACT." If it's easily verified, then why not add the citation? Yes, we do remove unsourced information. It's part of the Verifiability policy. Try reading it.

"You who had just reprimanded a different user for deleting the obviously inaccurate original version of the fluffing of Krasne, insisting that the thing to do is fix errors rather than delete something factual." I have no idea what you're talking about. Not once did you indicate until now that the material you removed was "inaccurate". If you have a case to make on its accuracy, then make it.

"As to the topic, get a clue. Krasne is a nobody. His gesture is all but meaningless and certainly inconsequential in the extreme. If the subject of honoring Bailey after the SC win matters, then the fact that the Kings organization honored his relatives ought to be the focus." The focus of that section is Bailey's death and legacy, and not any one particular event or data point. That section, like any other section in a Wikipedia article, can indeed contain multiple data points (it's why entire sections are created, after all), and the Stanley Cup being brought there is merely one of them, just as the Ace Bailey Children's Foundation is another and references to Bailey in songs or TV shows are yet others.

"Unlike the pointless link that you insist on retaining, which does not even mention Bailey." I do not insist on retaining the NHL link, since it doesn't really support the salient info in the disputed passage. The NESN and KCAL links are the ones required for it. I merely confused the NESN and NHL links initially, as I mentioned above.

Btw, my last restoration of that material was unintentional, and came about while I was making other, minor edits to the article that aren't a part of the dispute. It was not necessary to revert all of my edits, including the undisputed ones, or again violate WP:CIV, as you did in your subsequent edit summary. I have reported your continued attacks at the Administrators Noticeboard. Nightscream (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Remove: Sorry, but I agree this is an insignificant event. We are obviously not required to include in Wikipedia every bit of trivia some bored reporter throws up as the ephemeral Human Interest Piece of the day, and I strongly disagree with Nightscream's assertion that just because a news outlet fills airtime that Wikipedia's required to include the result: we have several policies and guidelines -- WP:UNDUE, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE, WP:GEOSCOPE -- which hold quite the opposite. I'm sure I could find half a hundred solid news citations supporting the facts (say) that Matt Damon likes his pizza with pineapple or that Miley Cyrus owns all of Steeleye Span's recordings, but we don't put those trivialities in their articles.

  I also dispute that this bit of trivia has any bearing one way or another on Bailey's "legacy" ... and wouldn't have, any more than were I to put up a placard in his honor in the town common, just because Bailey was a friend of my grandfather's.

  The anon IP's edit warring and incivilities are certainly objectionable, and I'd be quite content for him to get slapped down if he persists in them, but he's right in his objections to this material. Wikipedia is indeed not a newspaper, but it's also not wastepaper. Ravenswing 21:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Shorter Nightscream: Respect my authoritah!

And as a busy bee in the Wikipedia hive, it's surprising that you've never noticed that a huge proportion of commonly accepted facts in the typical entry are unsourced. But, again, it was critical to delete the fact that Bailey had a SC GWG unless somebody pointed you to the right page in one of the hockey almanacs. Hoo boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.10 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If by "commonly accepted facts" you mean things like "the sky is blue", that's because those things don't need to be sourced. The material in question, however, is not a "commonly accepted fact". And as such, it needs to be sourced, as per WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Like the other Keep voters above have said, it's not undue weight and is well sourced. The inclusion of the material does not bring down the quality of the article and gives the reader insight into Bailey's legacy and influence. Dismas|^(talk) 05:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Remove - Routine, run-of-the-mill story that received only a short duration of coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have been asked to offer an opinion as to consensus on this topic. First, I don't think I've edited this article, so I have no stake in the outcome. Per the arguments above, the consensus so far is the keep the info in. This is not only purely on a head count, but also based upon the arguments. As a real quick note on the arguments: Routine, run-of-the-mill story that received only a short duration of coverage and just about all the other arguments for removal are simply not applicable. Those are all notability arguments. Notability arguments ONLY go towards whether or not we should have a stand alone article on a topic. And I agree we would not have an article about some guy placing a hat at the 9/11 Memorial, as the coverage is routine. But, and this is an extremely important point: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." (emphasis added) So, the only valid argument would be UNDUE, and the consensus on that is that it is not. Not to mention that could be rectified by expanding the article, which BTW if someone is to edit it note the image should be right aligned, as that is the default placement unless there is a good reason for something else. But, feel free to keep debating as this has only been going on for a short time. But note, the anon-editor should at least attempt a civil discussion, as I think you crossed into borderline personal attacks, not to mention copyright infringement by pasting an article here, which someone should remove (there is no exception for talk pages, copyright infringement is copyright infringement). Aboutmovies (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked to come and offer an opinion. I think it, as well as the Dennis O'Leary part are both probably WP:UNDUE and border on being Trivia. That being said since it is sourced well I am not sure I would fight it too much being there. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Per the above keeps. As Aboutmovies points out, eloquently, one or more editors (Hirolovesswords comes to mind--in part because I've mentioned this to him in the past) appears to confuse our standards for "notability" of an article, and appropriateness for inclusion of a fact in the article. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hirolovesswords has made similar assertions, based on what I think is similar confusion, at an RFC Hiro opened here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The information is fine as it currently stands. SigKauffman (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Information seems accurate, though trivial, more importantly, it is sourced.--Abebenjoe (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)