Talk:Death and legacy of Tom Thomson

Algonquin Elegy external link

"Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

My book is included in the bibliography. I certainly am a recognized authority. The website referred to contains a series of essays on a variety of topics related to Thomson's death. You will find me referred to in Roy MacGregor's book, Northern Lights. I have spoken on Thomson many times at the McMichael, Thomson Gallery and Leith Church. I have an essay on the Canadian Mysteries website. Nlehto (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2018‎ (UTC)

Having to argue with an author about whether or not he is notable strikes me as somewhat of a ridiculous proposition. It's not something I'm really interested in doing. Of course, this is one reason why the rules regarding conflicts of interest were put in place. If you really think your website should be included, perhaps a dispute resolution request can be made because I really do not think this is an argument that you can enter into without violating COI (again, refer to WP:COI). I will add one note here, and that is that I am the one who included your book in the source list because I am the one who wrote this page. The only citation utilizing it is a line in the Popular culture sub-section, specifically, "Neil Lehto's 2005 book Algonquin Elegy is a self-described piece of historical fiction, focusing on Thomson's death." Tkbrett (✉) 14:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Succintly, why did you remove the External link to the Algonquin Elegy website? On a sidenote, I got into a similar dispute with Greg Klages a couple of years ago. He removed my website. I put it back. We went back and forth and he raised an objection similar to your's -- that it was a blog or personal web page. We agreed to disagree and he left it alone. Do you know him or have you discussed this with him. (There is an essay on the website reviewing his book he may not consider flattering.) Nlehto (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed the link per #11 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which is the one you quoted. It says that the "exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited," and that "as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." I'm hesitant to quickly put the link back for those reasons. By #5, I don't have any problem that your website is mostly to help sell your book since the essays you're talking about are located on a specific page of the site.

I know of Dr. Klages but I have never met him or had any interaction with him. Unless he's noticed all of the editing I've been doing, I'd hazard to say that he doesn't know I exist. I included the Canadian Mysteries site as an external link because it has archival material that is not easily available online (I actually haven't used the site except for linking, as my personal library has proved effective enough). I may remove the link to it now given that the arguments I'm putting forward against yours seem just as tenable against it (It hardly seems fair to have one and not the other). My editing and creating these Wiki pages for Tom Thomson has been an intersection between my personal interest in Canadian art and a newfound interest in Wikipedia editing. To be completely candid, I don't really have much interest in Thomson's death: my love for him extends to his art and the art only. My hope is that I can get these pages up to Featured Article status and draw more international attention to the artist that has touched me so very much. Even if this aspect doesn't interest me personally, I still worked hard on putting this page together because the topic is so wrapped up with Thomson and his art, and that's how Wikipedia works. Tkbrett (✉) 20:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the work you have put into the Tom Thomson page and this Death and Legacy page. Roy MacGregor has said of me: "Perhaps no one has worked as hard to know the unknowable and, in doing so, he has contributed invaluably to the greatest story in all of Canadian art." By any objective standard, I am recognized as an authority on the subject of this page. Last question: Did you read any of the essays BEFORE making your judgment against including them? I am pretty certain Dr. Klages is fully aware of your work and is as intimidated as I was. I think your remarks about his book give him more credit than is due. Also, you ought to add John Little's new book, Who Murdered Tom Thomson?Nlehto (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't really want to engage with you personally about whether or not you are a recognized authority and meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people. Given the process laid out in WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, finding a third opinion may be a useful venture. I have read as much as I can get my hands on regarding Thomson in the process of researching and editing these articles—that includes your essays. The content of those essays is not what I'm disputing in having them excluded in the External links, however. I included John Little's new book in the Further reading section for the main Tom Thomson article when I first heard of it, partly because it's further reading for myself (I haven't been able to get my hands on a copy yet...) Tkbrett (✉) 02:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

John Little's book belongs here, not on the main page. It is about his death. What was your objective criteria for deciding I am not recognized as an authority? Did you know I am listed in the credits for the recent documentary film by White Pine? I won't give you more examples. So, perhaps, the Algonquin Elegy essays would better fit under Secondary Sources or Articles? Finally, I would like to suggest adding a lot to this entry. We can talk further about what I can add from my research -- with references -- at some future time.Nlehto (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and started a thread on the External links Noticeboard to determine whether your web-page violates the guidelines. A few disinterested opinions should help to clear this up. Tkbrett (✉) 02:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

1917 Sketching Season

I have begun editing this section and need to ask about references, footnotes, and style that would ease my job and satisfy your concerns. So, for example, I believe there is sound evidence that Thomson came to the Park around March 23 -- based on his letter to brother-in-law Tom Harkness, his father, and Dr. MacCallum. Copies are reproduced on the Canadian Mysteries site. (The site was not finished while I was working on my book but I probably found them among archives sent to me by the National Archives. How would you think I should I should reference changing early April to late March? There appears to be some preference for secondary sources among your references (and Wikipedia, as well, to my surprise!).Nlehto (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The reference style I've taken a liking to is shortened footnote with brackets. Adding more precise information would be very helpful! Just make sure you avoid any original research (WP:NOR), since that's often a danger when using primary sources. WP:PRIMARY has instruction regarding this, but here's the most important bit: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Tkbrett (✉) 21:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sept 8 2022 revisions - apology and query

TKBrett - Apologies if the post seemed like "shameless self promotion". The link was included within the text because that was what I thought I was supposed to do to cite a reference that wasn't a specific, single document. The sentence related to the site in its entirety (which the current version of the Wikipedia page draws from and links to extensively).

Guidance on why each of the following are unacceptable would be appreciated.

---

PROPOSED ADDITION #1

"In 1969, one of Thomson's nephews, interviewed in an Owen Sound newspaper, suggested that Tom suffered a sprained ankle, which he wrapped in fishing line for support. David Silcox included this (unattributed) claim in his 1977 book co-authored with Harold Town, The Silence & The Storm. An edited edition published in 2017 offered a slightly altered version of the claim."

--- EXPLANATION: This proposed addition clarifies that Silcox did not introduce this idea, but rather repeated a claim that had been published almost a decade previously. Silcox's researcher discovered the claim, and included it in her notes (source: Interview with Elva Henry, Nov. 15, 1973 - https://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/thomson/investigations/1966-1978/5048en.html).

Silcox repeated the claim in 2002, and in 2017. In his 2017 article, Silcox actually makes an incorrect claim. On pg. 49, he states: "“[Thomson’s] feet weren’t tangled in wire, as has been repeatedly suggested, because [Mark] Robinson noted at the time the body was recovered that Thomson had carefully bound copper fishing line around a sprained ankle to give it support." The evidence clearly indicates, however, that Robinson did not make any notation about fishing line in 1917, but introduced a claim of this kind in the 1930s.

Additionally, the previous iteration of the article cited the Silcox 2017 book page, but this was not the first time Silcox proposed the idea; he introduced it in 1977 and published a revised version of the claim in 2017. I don't have the 1977 Silcox book in front of me to identify the particular page number on which he made the claim. As I note you've drawn on this source significantly in your contributions to the site, perhaps you could add the page # for the 1977 edition?

---

PROPOSED ADDITION #2

"The site includes edited transcripts of many documents related to Thomson's life and death. Additionally, various commentators offer their perspective on Thomson's death. Among these commentators, Dr. Michael Pollanen (then Ontario's Chief Forensic Pathologist), suggested that key characteristics of Thomson's corpse - noted by observers in 1917 - such as 'bruising' and 'bleeding from the ear', could be attributed to putrefaction rather than foul play. "

--- EXPLANATION: The Pollanen content is behind a 'subscription wall', but those interested in reading it can request access from the Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History project, as detailed on the site. I'm not trying to slip around Wikipedia standards, but genuinely don't know how to incorporate these claims from an important commentator when the information is not simple 'click and read immediately' content. Surely analysis of evidence by the province's Chief Forensic Pathologist merits consideration? Would it be better to cite Pollanen's article as an independent published document without a link? I'm just not sure how to include/cite this kind of unique resource.

---

PROPOSED ADDITION #3

"He provides a detailed chronology of how claims related to Thomson's death have evolved, and introduces new evidence (such as a 1931 description of the case and appeal to exhume Thomson's corpse made to Ontario's Attorney General by researcher Blodwen Davies). "

--- EXPLANATION: The statement notes discussion about a source recovered by the book's author, and cites the particular page numbers in which the document is discussed. The source was also excerpted on the Death On A Painted Lake site (for which the book's author was Research Director), but did not include any commentary or analysis. 142.214.88.224 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

References