Talk:The Beau-Marks

"which is in error"

@User:Chubbles Sorry to nitpick, I know this is a minor issue but unless a reliable source has stated that the Canadian Encyclopedia is wrong on this point, we can't, even with the best of intentions, actually say that here - the first paragraph of Wikipedia:No original research refers. You said in your revert edit summary that a reputable source has been given, but I can't see it. I think the linking word "though" is far safer, leaving the original research up to the reader, but subtly indicating that the Billboard Top 100 is the more reliable source. By the way, I can see the #45 and the chart here, but is there a ref for the date 11 July 1960?  —SMALLJIM  10:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

When somebody else updated the Allmusic URL they accidentally directed it to the band biography rather than the chart page. I've just fixed that. When I first made the article, I used the Canadian Encyclopedia as a biographical reference, but it has incorrect information about the chart peak, and I needed to note why there was a source discrepancy. The AMG reference has the right chart position; it's also listed here in my copy of Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 12th edition, and another editor looked up the original Billboard magazine issue. The ref for that is the issue itself, published 11 July 1960. The Canadian Encyclopedia reference was removed by another editor as well, for good reason; it also got the Cashbox peak position wrong. I suppose the CE just isn't reliable enough, certainly not for use in this article. Chubbles (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I would have suggested removing the Canadian Encyclopedia information altogether, but since you indicated it could be used to reintroduce the other figure, it may be best to retain it. However, it's still a matter of policy that unless a reliable source has specifically stated that the CE figure is in error, you cannot use your own research to say so. I've reworded the reference again in an attempt to make the position clear - hope you can agree to this compromise. I've also flagged the cashboxmagazine link as {{dead}}, but that's not a fatal problem.  —SMALLJIM  12:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the original research in any of this. I have two secondary sources with conflicting information. One of them is wrong, and it is demonstrably wrong based on the grounds of the initial published source (the Billboard issue from 1960). Neither I nor the other editor who added the note about the 1960 publication have done any original research; the Billboard issue is published and freely available in your local library (if it's a good one). It would be absurd for Wikipedia to merely report the variant positions as if they were equally meritorious. This, actually, is exactly the kind of situation that makes me bristle when the Wikiphrase "Verifiability, not truth" is invoked - the Beau Marks verifiably reached #29 on the pop charts, but they didn't reach #29 on the pop charts. The site should not reproduce reliably reported false facts as if they were reliably reported facts. Chubbles (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to explain again, though I did say this is a minor point! The first two sentences of WP:OR read: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." (my italics).

In this case the fact is "this CE data is wrong" (not "the position the song reached in the chart"). You know that the CE data is wrong through your own experience of the charts - and I'm happy to trust your experience in this matter, but since no reliable, published source has stated that "this CE data is wrong", WP:OR states that we can't say so in Wikipedia. Even a reliable source that said that the CE data is often unreliable would be helpful, but to use nothing but your own knowledge or experience is original research. Annoying, and as I said, in this case nit-picking, but true. There are three possible solutions: the first is to omit the wrong information; the second, if the CE data needs to be retained for some reason, is to use wording to suggest that it is the less reliable of the two figures, as I tried to do. Please don't bristle - I only came across this and changed it as part of a quick search for the phrase "which is in error" as a bit of research into the level of OR in WP. So the third solution is to pretend that I never came this way, and change it back: I won't revert and I doubt anyone else will ever notice. But do please remember the principle. By the way, you may not be aware that "verifiability not truth" was removed from WP:V a while ago now, after lengthy discussions.  —SMALLJIM  21:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to hear that that phrase has been stricken from WP:V. However, it seems that, if this logic were to hold, using rewording to suggest one is less reliable than the other is still "original research" - by making a judgment about the sourcing, you're going beyond the sourcing. But that kind of logic implies that determining whether something is a reliable source or not is original research in and of itself; if your definition of "original research" is going to be that strict, the site itself wouldn't function. We do more than blindly parrot the sources; evaluating them and integrating them (as WP:RS indeed demands, since we are encouraged to use many) is essential to article building. Chubbles (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sources are evaluated (theoretically by consensus, not one editor) and then integrated into articles according to that evaluation. If a source is considered to be unreliable then it usually doesn't get included at all, and if someone persists in adding it then the matter is discussed on a talk page. That's what should ideally have happened here.

However if for some reason another source that gives different data does need to be included in the article, then we attribute what each source says, giving each the weight appropriate to its prevalence in reliable sources (which is what I tried to do). We don't say that one source is wrong, unless a reliable source has already said that is the case.

But since we two are the only ones discussing this and we both agree, the simple solution is to remove the CE mention altogether, which I've done. If anyone puts it back (is that really likely?) you can refer them to this discussion.  —SMALLJIM  16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's quite likely; this is a band at the margins, and the CE reference, other than the mistaken chart placements, is quite good, and probably one of the highest-profile sources out there on them. If I were expanding this article, I'd use it again. But the amount of text we've spent discussing this issue has to be inversely proportional to how much it really matters in the world, so I'd rather focus my energies elsewhere. Chubbles (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Beau Marks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101102203115/http://cashboxmagazine.com:80/archives/60s_files/19600709.html to http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/60s_files/19600709.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)