Talk:Wright Brothers Medal

Notability concerns

Hi Agricola44 (as article creator and largest contributor). I would like to place a notability tag on this article, but since I get blocked for everything I do, I am firstly consulting others in this manner. This seems like a cool little medal contest and all, but since it is being awarded by SAE International (SAE), (formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers, is a professional organization for mobility engineering professionals in the aerospace, automotive, and commercial vehicle industries) basically a professional organization, I do not find this notable. What policies govern this, and what makes it notable to you? In the very least, we should probably remove the list of winners per WP:NOTDIR, since those entries have no secondary souces...Turqoise127 22:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Turq, feel free to put whatever tags on any of my articles you feel are warranted, or, even take them to AfD. I'm confident of my contributions and do not mind having them "tested" by folks like you. However, please consider some very well-intentioned and good-faith advice: In my opinion, you're well on your way to a permanent block from WP and I would stop the harassment. It's clear that you're following around those whom you perceive have wronged you. I think your recent 1-week block was the admins' version of a shot across the bow and next time they might make it permanent. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

The GNG is satisfied. It appears to have received two pages in [Significant American and international awards in aviation. A cursory search for it in books and news sources shows many references, including some direct coverage of it as well as prominent mention of it in biographies, indicating importance. The award has been around for a very long time, so Internet archive searches are unlikely to be a particularly good way to assess the complete amount of coverage.

Turq, instead of searching through the edit histories of your perceived adversaries, why don't you spend some time looking at new articles for their worthiness of inclusion? You can start here. ^Bongo_matic 23:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Bongo, thanks for that excellent source! I'm sort of an amateur aviation historian, but was totally unaware of that publication. Thanks again, Agricola44 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Your sentence ;"Internet archive searches are unlikely to be a particularly good way to assess the complete amount of coverage" speaks volumes. If we do not have significant coverage, we may not have notability.

Bongomatic, first, it would be nice if you did not follow me around, the questions I ask are of different editors than you, no? Second, I have no percieved adversaries, that would be childish. I am simply looking through contributions of some editors I am familiar with -many experienced participants have done so and said there is nothing wrong with that. I am not being disruptive, I inquire on talk pages in a civil manner.

Lastly, like you told me once; I will give your suggestions due weight, as I continue to edit the articles I see fit.Turqoise127 04:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the complete amount of coverage, the book previously identified clearly esablishes notability, so further inquiry into that is unnecessary. However, thorough coverage and referencing are always useful. ^Bongo_matic 04:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible COI issues?

How does the contributing editor know who the recipients were prior to 1973? The SAE website only lists the recipients from 1973. Also, can others please comment on removing the recipients all together per WP:NOTDIR ? Thanks.Turqoise127 21:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the hits for this award in books and news other than the SAE website, I don't see what the basis for inferring a COI. With respect to where to list the recipients, I don't have an opinion but would note that including them in the article on the award is a standard way of dealing with them (see Academy Award for Best Picture#Winners and nominees). The other alternative is to create a separate list article. ^Bongo_matic 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Again Turq, put whatever tags you see fit. I'm not being drawn into another bickering match with you. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Dissent with this article

Due to the fact I am being accused of having bad faith opinions on this and certain other articles, I am forced to simply voice my concerns in this manner and to this extent only; on the said article talk page. I believe this Medal is not notable, regardless of the fact it seems important. It is a "medal" in the scope of a single field, aeronautics, which can only appeal to enthusiasts. It is awarded by a simple professional organization that only wishes to promote its own goals and views. The main contributing editor has created somewhat of a WP:WALL here, with most if not all their created articles having to do with this award and its recipients (many of them, yes, but still just recipients). The article is completely unsourced with the exception of a book source provided recently upon my inquiries; and we have no idea what the content of that book's mentions is. For all we know the book states "insignificant medal". In addition, the recipients prior to year 1973 are completely unsourced; we have no idea how they were found to be listed? I encorage editors to be WP:BOLD and to remove the list of recipients per WP:NOTDIR (this is not the list of academy award winners as someone above stated, not even close, please) and to tag the article for no sources as well. My goal is not to "be bickering" as I was accused above, but to improve the project. Have a great day all. Turqoise127 04:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

With reference to the citation to the book Significant American and international awards in aviation, you wrote:

we have no idea what the content of that book's mentions is.

However, that's false. The citation contains a link to the full-text of the book.

You also wrote:

the recipients prior to year 1973 are completely unsourced.

This is also false. The book contains the complete list.

The award is considered sufficiently notable to be, well, noted in the biographies of many of its recipients. This is a measure (not necessary definitive, but certainly not irrelevant) of its perceived significance in the field of aerospace. The fact that the award is a specialist one is not grounds for exlcuding it from coverage. As WP:5P states, Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."

If you believe there is likely to be a community-wide consensus that this award is non-notable, you should do the project a favor and nominate it for deletion. ^Bongo_matic 04:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just because the medal has nothing to do with croatian translation doesn't make it not notable. I agree that you gotta take it to AfD if you want to battle over it. Thank you.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I am really considering tagging this article with "lack of references" and with notability, yes, per WP:BOLD. Is the one ancient book scanned into the digital library a sufficient lone RS for establishment of notability? Also, upon following the link to the very first recipient of the award (coincidentaly, also created by same editor who created this article), I see nothing making the subject notable (not even a claim) except for recieving this very award...I do not wish to check each recipient, I neither have time nor care enough to do so, but are all of them similarly lacking? Is there really a problem here? Is there really WP:WALL issues? This award and its recipients do make up the bulk of articles created by this editor...WildHorsesPulled (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} templates are for articles where the content is not verified by reliable sources, or where the accuracy of content is otherwise questionable. They are not directly related to notability (although notability is generally demonstrated by coverage in sources). Those templates are obviously inapplicable here as all of the claims are supported by the sources, whose reliability can't seriously be in question.

As for notability, people have opined here both ways. If you seriously dispute that, either nominate the article for deletion, or tag it—in the latter case, I'll commence a procedural AfD in order to have the article judged by the wider community. ^Bongo_matic 07:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Bongomatic. I suppose my only remaining question if you feel inclined to comment on is what policy we use for awards & medals? And is the one single RS sufficient? And it seems you did not respond to the apparently non-notable recipients of the award (I actually olny looked at the very first one)?WildHorsesPulled (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The provocateurs should simply tag this article or take it to AfD instead of just trying to foment another bickering match here. Good faith appears to have gone out the window ... sad. Wild, even the paltriest bit of homework on your part would have shown you that many of the giants of aerospace have won this award, for example Eastman Jacobs and Clarence Johnson. Alas though, as you said, you "neither have time nor care enough to do" such homework. If you're planning on editing this article, you should. And why would you patronizingly refer to a US Gov't publication that considers this a notable award "one ancient book scanned into the digital library"? You're implying that a 50-year-old book is less qualified as a reference than a new book. Are you aware of how absurd that is? Again, do what you will. However, I think such action will further erode your credibility. Or instead, how about accepting the invitation that I make to you now to research some of the others listed here and start articles on them too? It's a challenge, perhaps more so than in other more fashionable articles, because you actually have to seek out the print sources, which are mostly not to be found on the internet, so it's (lots) more work. Hope you'll join in. Agricola44 (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Winning very significant awards is a standalone indication of notability (you can see this in several of the subject-specific notability guidelines). For an award itself to be notable, it need not rise to such a level of significance that all of its recipients are notable. However, there's no reason not to name non-notable recipients of an award.

As to the award under discussion, I don't have a view as to whether it's so significant that every recipient is automatically notable. However, the way it is reported in biographical coverage of recipients makes it seem like an award that is quite important to its recipients and to the field at large. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. It is listed first, described as "coveted", and generally invoked to indicate significant accomplishment. ^Bongo_matic 02:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

References

I have collected quite a number of references for both the medal itself and those who've won it. I've begun to add these references and will continue to do so over the next week or two. I believe this will materially improve the article. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for adding these references. With those included and the article materially improved, I no longer have notability or referencing concerns.

My only remaining concern is wheather or not the very first recipient is automatically notable and should be included in the pedia just because they are a recipient. This may be an issue for other recipients as well, as I said, I had not checked them all. I lean towards feeling that many of these recipients should be deleted unless notability is well established even without the award.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As you say, those are other articles which have to each be assessed on an individual basis. However, there's an established consensus (i.e. it appears in many of the notability guidelines) that winning a notable award renders one notable. That is, it demonstrates that this person is "one whom others have taken note of". Essentially, everyone listed in this article is notable ipso facto, whether they have their own WP page yet, or not. You're welcome to take any of the recipients' pages to AfD, but you'll likely get a speedy keep, along with an admonition to stop nominating award-winners. That action is, of course, up to you. I'll again invite to join in on fleshing-out this article, if you perchance have an interest in aerospace history. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

As you're starting to see, the annual awarding is announced widely in the scientific, industrial, and technical literature. There are many instances where one finds >10 references for a specific winner, but I'll limit it here to at most 2 so as not to be too obnoxious. I'll keep adding missing references as time permits, but there should now be enough to convince even the most strident of doubters here that this is an important (pardon, "notable") award for which there is a gigantic amount of WP:RS. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

Article Now in Good Standing

There are now 50 WP:RS references in this article, which is more than sufficient to satisfy any concern of sources and notability expressed above. I'll stop at this point lest the article be too "reference heavy", which it certainly is getting close to. Others may, of course, add more if they wish. Article is much improved and out of danger of being tagged or going to AfD, I would say. Off to other things. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Red Links

This article has had numerous red links for a long time – the articles for these folks have not materialized yet. WP:RED now discourages this sort of thing, so I will be removing these soon, provided there are no strong objections (like if you're just about starting to create some of these articles). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC).