Talk:Deena Brush Mapple

Untitled

Why isn't a HOF profile impartial? I would think that's the ultimate authority on where someone stands in the overall annals of a sport. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a praise page, one devoted to trumpeting their fame; see hagiography. Reliable sources maintain a more neutral point of view. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, that still seems a little odd to me in the sense that I don't know why other sources that would write on the subject - or any other subject - would have good cause to be considered more objective. Wouldn't any waterski magazine, for example, which would have the promotion of the sport in mind and might publish biographies or articles with much less consideration for the impact of their statements? My reasoning regarding the HOF as perhaps the most credible source is that there exists no institution that would have more interest in according athletes their proper place in history in considered and unbiased fashion. What I mean is that there would be no incentive for a HOF of any sport to say "John Doe" is the best skier/slugger/hula-hooper that ever lived if it were not an honest assessment because they would be discrediting "John Die," who is also probably in their HOF. I'm not sure who would be a better, more neutral and non-partisan source for that. I also figured that the statement in question - that mapple is thought "by many" to be the best female skier of her generation - wasn't particularly controversial at all given the tournament wins she piled up. Besides, it is simply saying she is "thought by many," not that she unequivocally was the best of her generation. I think it would be hard to make a case that there aren't "many" people out there that would disagree.

But anyway most of that is academic. Would I be able to use the HOF as a source for things like that if I can find another source? Thanks!DoctorFuManchu (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, also, what kinds of things would qualify as better sources? thanks. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.waterskihalloffame.com/docs/Bios/Deena%20Mapple.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deena Brush Mapple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20101204090920/http://hickoksports.com/history/worldwaterski.shtml to http://www.hickoksports.com/history/worldwaterski.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)