Talk:Rick Harrison

Other TV show

I saw Richard Harrison appear on a tv show on Destination America called Top TEn Ways to Win in Vegas, made in 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.183.214 (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

1. Are birth and death records on Ancestry.com user-generated? 2. Would they be usable for that info in BLP articles like this one? 3. Even if the public records there are not added by users, would WP:BLPPRIMARY preclude using them?

Ancestry.com is not a reliable source, because the material there is user-generated, and sources whose content is user-generated are not reliable, under WP:USERG. This is not my declaration by fiat, mind you, but is reflective of the community, as illustrated by the following four past discussions at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard:

• March 2010 Three editors say it's unreliable because its content is user-generated: David Underdown, Blueboar and radek.
• June 2010 Three additional editors agree that it's unreliable: Jayjg, A Quest For Knowledge, Bielle, and MarmadukePercy. One editor, JakeInJoisey, disagrees. Another, Dlabtot, questions JakeInJoisey, but doesn't state outright an opinion of his own on Ancestry.com.
• July 2010 Four additional editors concur with previous findings: Auntof6, Gadget850 (Ed), TheFeds, and Slp1.
• March 2011 Another editor, Jezebel'sPonyo, defers to the previous discussions, and two other editors, Andrew Lancaster and CalvinTy, also argue that census records should either not be used or be used in a highly limited manner because they are primary sources instead of secondary ones.

The bottom line is, if the information there comes from users, as with imdb, wikis, blogs, open forums, etc., then it's a user-generated site, which violates WP:USERG. One editor from the second discussion, JakeInJoisey, says, "There is, I believe, considerable 'editorial oversight'", but when another editor responds to that statement to ask him what the basis is of that assertion, JakeInJoisey never responds. And another editor in that same discussion, Bielle, even says that he is a contributor to Ancestry.com, and adds information frequently, saying, "There is no editorial oversight." Another editor, A Quest For Knowledge, acknowledges that user-submitted content is not reliable, but asks if one of the articles written by Ancestry.com staffers would be, and MarmadukePercy says, "I am unfamiliar with the magazine, but from what I've seen, I'd be reluctant to cite Ancestry.com as a source for anything – except...where Ancestry obviously struck a deal to carry proprietary content from a reputable source, the Dictionary of American Family Names published by Oxford University Press." Thus, it seems fairly clear that most in the community feel that most of the material on that site is unreliable. Nightscream (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The certificates are certainly not user-generated, I'm not sure what you are saying (family trees are, but their records aren't) - if we can verify 'for sure that the registry entry is for him, that it should be okay. – Connormah (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As a recommendation, if you're going to respond here, then it's a bit of overkill to express the same sentiment on my talk page. The most you should do if you think I won't see your response here is to simply inform me that you've made a response here, rather than repeat it. And I can assure you that this talk page is indeed on my watchlist, just as the article itself is.

As to your point, who do you think adds those certificates and records? Simple. Users. Not reporters, journalists or researchers, but people with registered accounts on Ancestry.com over whom editorial oversight is not exercised, as established above.

In addition, public records should not be used for biographical material, as indicated BLP: Misuse of primary sources. Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No - the records are not added by ordinary users - I cannot add records nor can you - the offices obtain the records and index them accordingly. I do discourage using these records, but I can see some use for them in some limited circumstances, but in any case, as I stated on your talk, there has to be a certainty that the correct record is being used. – Connormah (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: the first thread above - yes, rootsweb is user generated, but it is completely different from Ancestry. Rootsweb IIRC is a site where you can string together a family tree using the original records from Ancestry. The Ancestry records themselves are not user generated. – Connormah (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered response. Unfortunately it is based on a false premise that ancestry.com is a user-generated site. You say: "The bottom line is, if the information there comes from users, as with imdb, wikis, blogs, open forums, etc., they it's a user-generated site, which violates WP:USERG". Ancestry.com is not a user-generated site. While it contains some user-generated information (family trees), almost eveything else is from publically available official records eg county or state halls of record eg births, marriages, and deaths, as well as census, military (including draft cards), newspapers, etc. The modus operandi is that ancestry.com pays for their employees to scan official documents and they upload these records, not subscribers or "users". It is similar to what Google does with Google Books or Google News, or www.newspaperarchive.com does. The sources are RS, and should be evaluated accordingly. You acknowledge that with reference to Dictionary of American Family Names that there is the possibility of RS sources within the site. Did you notice the specifics of each reference provided? In addition to the ancestry.com attribution, there is specific reference to such sources as the North Carolina Birth Index, and the means to verify those sources. As regards editorial oversight, none is needed as the records are photostatic scans - there is no analysis or interpretation provided or needed. It presents the documents which speak for themselves. This is relevant as the prohibition (or rather reluctance to use Primary sources), is where these form the basis of OR. Again, none is provided or needed. For example, the assertion that Richard Kevin Harrison was born on March 22, 1965 in Lexington, Norh Carolina is appropriately sourced. It requires no mental cogitation on behalf of the WP editor. The record lists his parents and there are other details provided that ensure that the right person's records are accessed and used. Ancestry.com is a helpful tool for biographical articles. It is more accurate generally that newspaper obits (which are generally sourced from info provided by a family member).smjwalsh (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Connormah: "The Ancestry records themselves are not user generated."

Smjwalsh: "As regards editorial oversight, none is needed as the records are photostatic scans..."

And who adds those records and photostats to the site? What documentation or evidence do you have that they're added by paid employees, and not users? If 11 different people say that the material on that site is added by users, including one editor who says that he himself is an ancestry.com user who has added material himself, that pretty much clinches it, I think.

Moreover, even if what you said were true, did you not see the final portion of my message above regarding WP:BLPPRIMARY? Did you read that portion of the BLP policy? It says:

"Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

So even if the material on ancestry.com came from public records, they wouldn't be usable.

As for Rick's birthdate, that isn't sourced to Ancestry, it's sourced to a Dispatch article.

I have requested that editors from those previous discussions join this discussion to address the issue of both the assertion about paid employees, and BLPPRIMARY. I have not restricted my invitations to those who opined that the site is user-generated, but also extended it to JakeInJoisey, who asserted that there was considerable editorial oversight there. I will also open an RfC to attract more editors.

And incidentally, this has nothing to do with OR. OR refers to material based on personal knowledge, which has nothing to do with the approach to using primary sources, a completely separate and unrelated policy. While PSTS is indeed located on the OR policy page, OR itself refers to material that is based on no published sources, not primary ones, as it says in the opening sentence of the OR page. Nightscream (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Commenting as per request.

• First general point: ancestry.com is quite likely to be an RS for some purposes. We always need to remember that reliability is context relative. Very few sources can not be used for anything. Very few sources would be considered reliable for everything. I am not in favour of creating over simplified rules about sourcing which make a single source always good or always bad, and I believe my point here is a widely shared one.
• Second general point. Ancestry.com is a big website with many types of source. We should not mix those things up.
• For example they have some scanned books, something like google books. These are often neither user-generated nor primary. Of course in such cases, it should be possible to name those and avoid a debate?
• User generated sources are rarely reliable. I would really have to be convinced about any particular example, and I am having trouble thinking of any.
• It is correct to point out that wherever a living person is concerned, and the information might be sensitive, we should be more strict than usual about sourcing.
• Primary sources in ancestry.com are probably the most common tricky area. But some people over-simplfy. There is no blanket ban on using primary sources, only a caution that they are not always appropriate. However many previous discussions concerning ancestry.com have been about things like using censuses or parish registers for dates. These are classic cases of where primary sources are normally not able to be used because as any good genealogist will tell you, interpretation of such documents is "non obvious", and often trick up even very good researchers. There MIGHT be cases where such a document might be a good source for some very particular type of information, but they would be special cases. If we are just talking about sifting through raw data to find a date or age or place of birth, then this is rarely going to be "non obvious".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, actually there is a blanket ban on using primary sources such as public records in BLP articles. See WP:BLPPRIMARY--Slp1 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• RFC comment

This looks like a WP:RSN request. Every RSN discussion needs two things:

1) What is the article and content under discussion?

2) What is the source being used to support it?

This RFC provides neither 1) nor 2), so no answer is possible. It's about as meaningless asking saying "Is cnn.com a reliable source?" You'd have to answer, Yes (or at least parts of it) for some things, No for others. I'd say cnn.com news articles are generally a reliable source for factual information about world events, but cnn.com-hosted user-generated "iReport" videos or the forum-type discussions of articles that cnn.com hosts are not reliable sources for BLP information.

As has been pointed out, ancestry.com has a lot of different kinds of information available and it is absolutely incorrect to make a blanket statement like ancestry.com "is" or "is not" a reliable source. The user-generated family trees fail WP:USERG and cannot be used to support claims of relationships between people. The many scans of primary source documents can be used as primary sources with care.

Regarding WP:BLPPRIMARY, what it actually says is:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

"Exercise caution" does not mean "it is forbidden."

So the answer is, "It depends." We need to have the article content and which exact ancestry.com-provided source to come up with an answer. Zad68 13:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am a professional historian who has used ancestry.com for at least 6 years. As indicated above, subscribers to the site CANNOT add official records. All they can do is identify transcription errors or quality of scan issues. What other WP editors indicate is still consistent with my position if their primary involvement is in the area of creating family trees. However, even in relation to that there is no capacity to upload records or documents relating to birth, marriage, death, military, newspapers, etc. I am aware of the FULL statement regarding using primary sources and am an experienced enough editor to be able to use those sources with extreme diligence. However, the check is there for other users to dispute contentious material and the subjects of BLP to request removal if a line is crossed. While this is a good general discussion. perhaps it would be best to focus on specific sources used in THIS article and associated articles.smjwalsh (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

SMJ, I am actually concerned about the edit you just made using ancestry.com. What reliable source do we have that indicates the primary-source record you found matches this individual? Zad68 14:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Give me an example of what you are concerned about and I can discuss better. The birth certs indicate both father and mother, place and date of birth, address of parents, etc. These correlate with other sources eg Rick Harrison's book, various newspaper articles referenced already in the article. However, would you prefer ancestry.com reference as intermediate source be restored?smjwalsh (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just on this side discussion. This approach of correlating different imperfect sources may need to be considered in the light of WP:SNYTH. In summary, snythesis of distinct raw information from different sources, to form a separable conclusion, has to be very obvious and non-controversial, so if other editors object the onus is on to defend it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I am aware of the warnings about synthesis. When I used the word correlate, it was not in relation to cobbling together imperfect sources. In my mind, correlation refers to a one to one correspondence between material in different sources. Perhaps I should have used the word "correspond" originally. In other words, RS are used to confirm other sources, using a hermeneutic of known clarifying unknown. Eg in relation to the subject's birthdate, if there were several records that could be the correcy birth certificate, the one that matches the names of his parents, place of birth, and year provided i his autobiography is most likely to be correct. Of course if the subject lies about birth year (not unknown for the subjects of some biographies), then this could be discussed in the footnotes.smjwalsh (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You've identified exactly the problem with your final example; WP does not engage in this kind of investigation and doesn't allow editors to highlight inconsistencies in a person's lifestory, unless somebody else has pointed it out first. This is the epitome of WP:OR; fine for an article in a academic journal or newspaper (or even a blog), but not to be used here. --Slp1 (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment following is in response to a request on my talk page from Nightscream: Others are making this key point: to the best of my knowledge, the original "institutional" records are added by the site owners. That makes them as reliable (or not) as any original historic record of, for example, passenger manifests, or death registers or parishes records. Personal records, like copies of birth certificates or marriage certificates, are added by users, and there is nothing to say they have not been altered or correct connections have not been made. The connections between names on the various institutional sources, and specific individuals, are made by site users. I found, for example, the names of an aunt and a cousin on a ship's manifest on a date I knew they had sailed from England for Canada. The names are sufficiently distinctive that it is unlikely to have been any two but them. However, to connect them to me (that is, that they are my aunt and my cousin) you would have to know what I "know" and accept all I know as historical fact. That is where Ancestry.com is not reliable. Bielle (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also respoindig to a request made on my talk page. My comment in a previous discussion on WP:RSN relating to the specific usage of some information has eben slightly misrepresented. In that instance the information was from a user-generated portion of the Ancestry website (the website includes discussion boards, user-published family trees and the like), but as I mentioned in my comment, large parts of Ancestry are the scans of source documents and associated transcriptions/indexes. Those are under the editorial control of Ancestry staff, and it certainly appears that the information in this case falls into that category (on a matter of sourcing, I'd prefer to see a direct link to the specific recod, with a note that a subscription is required). However, as others have noted, while WP:PRIMARY does allow for the cautious use of reliably published primary sources, the issue is the interpretation, without other information we cannot be sure that the correct record has been identified (the subject's names are not that unusual), so really we need secondary sources too to confirm that it's the correct birthday, and/or both the parents' names are both correct and the location of the birth is correct and so on. There is some tension between WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP in these sorts of cases - we shouldn't be "outing" things that aren't generally already in the public sphere (that's less of an issue for historical figures). Also of concern is the level of reversion that's been going on in this article, WP:3RR hasn't been breached I don't think, but once a source is challenged, it's better to talk about it and get consenus for its use (and the inclusion of the facts it is supporting) rather than just asserting that you are correct and pig-headedly putting it back into the article. David Underdown (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am responding to the request for comment on my talkpage. I would agree with others that statinng what the content that is being disputed would be helpful. In any case, I have temporarily at least removed the birthdates and names of Mr. Harrison and his children. This is per BLP and should NOT be restored without getting consensus here. BLP:Primary is very clear that WP does not use primary sources such as public documents (e.g birth records) for information about living people (which seems to be the case for some of the informationhere). I've left in Harrison's birth year, as that date is quoted in the autobiography. BLP policy is also very clear that we have to be extra cautious about including full dates of birth and names, which is also the case for obvious reasons.WP:DOB. This is most especially in the case of non-notable children. See WP:BLPNAME. Bielle and David explains some of the reasons why primary sources should not be used and why, per BLP, the information needs to stay out of the article until a different consensus is reached. See [1]. This could come if secondary (non-public records) support for this material is found. Slp1 (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Harrison's family, including his children: he names them in his book License to Pawn: Page 34 refers to exnuptial pregnancy of RH's later 1st wife Kim, subsequent miscarriage, marriage. Page 38 refers to Corey's birth ca.1983, and birth of second son Adam 2 years later ca.1985. Page 39 refers to separation of RH and KIm ca. 1985. Page 40 identifies 2nd wife as Tracy from WV. Page 41 refers to their wedding. Page 42 identifies name of Corey's wife. Photo section between pages 84 and 85 idebtifies RH's brothers by name, mother's name, names and photos of Corey and Adam. Page 77 identifies RH and Tracy's son as Jake born in 2003. My point. If Harrison is willing to identify these (and more) details in his best-selling book, why the reluctance to do so in this article? As this book is certainly RS, then surely these details can be restored.smjwalsh (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The extra caution comes from the fact that Wikipedia provides a much more accessible and searcheable format than a book does, and of course that some of the information you wanted to include wasn't even in the book-or was given approximately -but was the result of your (probably correct, but nevertheless) original research through primary sources.

As to the reason for the rules, you'd have to discuss that at WP:BLP, but let me give you a possible scenario. Your edits noted a different first name for his eldest. We don't know why the first name was dropped; maybe he hated the name; maybe he was teased unmercilessly at school about it; maybe his name was changed by deed poll because of this. Whatever the reason, he is a non-notable person who does not need to have his full name and age published so that it will be found whenever anybody googles his name when thinking about hiring him, dating him or whatever. The question is does it help our understanding of Mr. Harrison to know his son's birthname, and the answer is no. I think we can discuss whether it might helpful to have a bit more detail, saying that he had a son, born c. 1983 and another born c 1985 or similar, since it is in the book, but that's quite another matter from the stuff sourced to birth certificates. --Slp1 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You can see I know nothing about this show! I see now that Corey is actually on the show so to my mind it is fine to name him at least. --Slp1 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonable response. No-one is expecyed to know everything about every article. I realise some are on this page because of previous discussions about ancestry.com as a RS, rather than as folk interested in the subject of this article. Corey's birth name is available in various publically available RS, including newspaper articles. It is not a huge secret. Obviously he is a notable person (although without a WP article yet). I suspect the specific birth dates can be found online in verious RS. I have not looked (yet). Corey also contributes a chapter in his father's book that disloses (among other things) his drug addictions, wife's name and details, etc. Again, if they are willing to disclose this info in a book or in various interviews, surely it can be included in WP articles where relevant.smjwalsh (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you do your searches and list the reliable sources you find here? That's the simplest method. If there are reliable secondary sources for all or some of the information, then the problem of using primary sources will disappear, and we only need to deal with potential privacy issues.

If Corey is notable enough to need an article (and I am not convinced he is, based a quick search for reliable sources about him), then the info in that book would be fine for his article, subject to all the usual rules about Undue weight, BLP etc. --Slp1 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks to all for joining this discussion. A couple of points:

Zad68, this has already been at RSN four times, and a total of about ten or eleven people indicated that the material on ancestry.com was user-generated, including one editor, Bielle, who said he was a contributor to that site. So it seemed pretty cut and dried. But when Smjwalsh disputed this, I felt I needed clarification on this, so I wanted a broader consensus. The fact that I often get one response from one editor before the thread dies and is archived on RSN is another reason why I opened up an RfC. I hope this was okay.

As for your point about asking more specific questions about what material from a source is being used for what portions of an article, I have amended the questions underneath the RfC banner above to be more specific.

David, I'm sorry if I misrepresented anything you said in one of those discussions; I tried my best, when examining the discussions, to represent each editor's position as accurately as I could. As to the matter 3RR, I do indeed stop reverting when it's clear that the other editor is not going to back down, and/or has a legitimate policy-based rationale for disputing or reverting. I saw that Smjwalsh indeed had such a line of argument here after my last revert; Had I seen his post here prior to my last revert, I would not have reverted.

Smjwalsh, I want to thank you again for editing these articles. Your dedication to adding all this material and sourcing everything definitely improves the project. I want to make clear that I will not oppose using ancestry.com if it appears that a preponderance of the editors here say that it's okay to do so. But let's be clear: My previous opposition was to ancestry.com, and not Rick Harrison's book. I don't think anyone has stated any opposition to citing his book. Nightscream (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC) (Addendum: I see now that you were referring to Slp1's removal of material sourced to his autobio. That should not have been done.)

I should probably have said misunderstood, rather than misrepresented. David Underdown (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am impressed by your willingness to change your opinion based on more compelling evidence. Perhaps we have moved on from the discussion as to whether ancestry.com is a user-generated site or not. If not, here is what their own website indicates: "The foundation of our service is an extensive and unique collection of billions of historical records that we have digitized, indexed and put online since 1996. We have developed efficient and proprietary systems for digitizing handwritten historical documents, and have established relationships with national, state and local government archives, historical societies, religious institutions and private collectors of historical content around the world. These digital records and documents, combined with our proprietary online search technologies and tools, enable our subscribers to research their family history, build their family trees and make meaningful discoveries about the lives of their ancestors" (emphasies mine). It also discusses the sections that are user-generated, but clearly indicates that there are 10 billion historical records they have uploaded (ie the employees of ancestry.com), compared to 38 million family trees and 136 million user-contributed photographs, stories, and documents. In my mind, this clearly established that while ancestry.com has user-generated content, that the preponderance of its material is their collection of historical documents and records their employees have uploaded. I hope this clarifies this mattersmjwalsh (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, this discussion of ancestry.com is moot, and I think the RFC should be closed. Ancestry is a repository of public records and public records such as these cannot be used in biographies of living people such as this one. Because of the original research required with the primary records such as this, they are not the greatest source for any WP article, but in a BLP they are an absolute no-no. Find some secondary sources. --Slp1 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the point is no longer whether it's user-generated, but whether to use public records as primary sources. Editors such as Slp1 say we can't. Nightscream (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple of corrections: the issue isn't whether to use public records as primary sources, but whether we can use primary sources such as public records in a BLP. And the answer is no. That is not my opinion but the very clear statement of our BLP policy. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.". As I said, if there are secondary sources out there, let's use them, but ancestry.com is a non-starter. --Slp1 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Can primary sources be used carefully in relation to deceased persons? One fact deleted related to the subject's sister who died at age 6, backed by the death certificate issued by Norh Carolina? smjwalsh (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't forbidden per BLP as it is for somebody who is living, but given the concerns eloquently expressed below about the very significant original research issues and even the possibility of getting that research quite wrong, I think it should be avoided as much as possible. Consider also that the details of the sister's exact date of death and the exact cause of her death does not really add important additional information to our understanding of Rick Harrison. Remember too that you are delving into (and then publicizing) the family history of a bunch of people who are very much alive, so there are also ethical issues involved. It is interesting to note that many genealogy organizations have ethics codes which include maintaining confidentiality into research findings e.g. [2]. To this end, I have questions about appropriateness of the exact births and deaths and the locations of the parents in the other article. I've left it in, but personally I don't think it is appropriate: no need for that level of detail especially when it is only sourced to original research into primary sources which we are supposed to avoid. Yes, it is possible to find out this stuff, but I think it is rarely necessary or appropriate to include it per WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and WP:NOR Slp1 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One scribbler's thoughts

Most of this was drafted many hours ago, so it may not engage later posts as well as it should. Also, I had intended to write five quick sentences, but things got away from me. I hope at least someone finds this useful...

I have no idea who Rich Harrison is -- haven't even looked at the article. I stumbled on this discussion by accident. These are my opinions based on six years of academic research in which I regularly consult Ancestry:

(1) The scans of census records and so on are exactly analogous to court records and are WP:PRIMARY. They may seem straightforward to interpret but they are not. The following example comes (with some simplifications) from my own research. A census return appears on its face to establish that, on the enumeration date ("Name of each person whose place of abode on April 1, 1880 was..."), person X was living with person Y at address A. But it turns out that X did not move to address A until some weeks after April 1 (census enumerators often didn't come by until several months after the enumeration date, and would get the information from whomever happened to be home, or even from neighbors, so exactly who was in residence on April 1 wasn't always accurately remembered). It also turns out that person Y was listed with a completely incorrect last name (I still don't know why that is, but there's no doubt). Establishing these errors required detailed knowledge of census-taking practices at the time, plus comparison with other sources from several states and several foreign countries (literally). After all this work is (God willing) published in (ahem) a highly prestigious academic journal, then an image of the census record, with dicussion of the above, might make its way into WP. But for someone to just upload the census record image to WP and write, "X and Y lived at A on April 1" would be utterly inappropriate and completely wrong.

(1A) The only way I can imagine that a census record image would be usable in a WP article would be as an illustration of a fact established by the usual reliable sources. A good example is seen in Malcolm X. That Malcolm X's family lived at a certain address is established by sources cited in the text. Given that, there's nothing wrong (I won't go into potential copyright issues here) with fetching the corresponding census sheet off Ancestry as a fascinating image.

(1B) However, if that image were to show an "M.L. King" living next door, but no source comments on that, it would be completely inappropriate to say anything about that in the article; in fact, given the liklihood that readers would jump to an unsupported conclusion in this case, an argument might be made for excluding the image from the article after all.

(1C) I gather from comments above...

For example, the assertion that Richard Kevin Harrison was born on March 22, 1965 in Lexington, Norh Carolina is appropriately sourced. It requires no mental cogitation on behalf of the WP editor. The record lists his parents and there are other details provided that ensure that the right person's records are accessed and used.

...that the question at issue is whether some birth certificate record or such can be used as a source on WP to establish this birthdate. In my opinion absolutely not. I wish it were so that official records, legal documents, and so on were always so straightforward that they can be confidently given their "obvious" facial interpretation, in isolation. Unfortunately it's just not so, as the census example I've already given shows.

(1D) In fact, let me give a second example of the difficulty of interpreting primary records. Let's suppose:

• A scan of a real estate deed, on file in a Deeds Office somewhere, appears to show that Property P was bought by Person A on 1/1/1990.
• Another deed appears to show that Person B bought the property on 1/1/1999.
• A third scan, of a page from a Deeds index, apparently shows that there were no deeds affecting this property in between those two dates.

Would we be be justified in writing, "Person A owned Property P on the date of the accident, 1/1/1995"? Absolutely not. Who owned something on a certain date is a very tricky business -- to be certain no other deed intervenes between 1990 and 1994 requires an extensive knowledge of state law and the particular recording and indexing practices of a given county (see Title insurance#Reason for existence) and there's no way for WP editors to effectively settle this kind of question.

Of course, when we use a secondary source we are relying on that source to have done that complex work, or to have consulted reliable people to do it for him or her. It may even be that another secondary source comes to a different conclusion about who owned what. So haven't we merely substituted a new debate -- over which of the two secondary sources should be believed for their interpretation of the primary sources -- for original debate -- over the primary sources themselves? Yes, but we're still better off, and here's why: the technical minutiae of various primary sources differ widely, but the indicia of source reliability are very much the same across disciplines: reputation, writing style, internal consistency, internal sourcing, and so on. Furthermore, secondary sources often engage in debate with each other and criticize each others reasoning -- enhancing editors' ability to evaluate them -- while primary sources pretty much sit there naked and mute, for better or worse. Thus discussing the secondary sources is usually more productive than directly debating the underlying primary sources.

(2) Connormah is incorrect. Ancestry's family trees and so on are assembled in any number of ways, including user input and mass importation of other sources, often involving an OCR step of uncertain quality. They are useful for the sort of research that leads to the creation of what will eventually be reliable sources once published, but they are not themselves reliable sources for WP. Even if a tree entry cites a reliable source, on Ancestry you're not seeing that source -- you're seeing someone transcribing and interpreting that source -- and there's nothing to indicate that the "someone" is reliable.

(3) If Ancestry acts as a web gateway to e.g. the NYT archive database, as part of what you're paying for, then the NYT archive is the source, not Ancestry, and should be evaluated on its own.

(4) Ancestry's OCR scans of otherwise reliable sources (e.g. old encyclopedias, DNBs) are of uncertain quality and are of highly variable accuracy. If you find something in such a scan (or an index generated from such a scan), and consultation of the original source shows the scan was correct, then fine (and in this case your source is the original source, not Ancestry).

Again, the above are just my opinons, albeit based on extensive experience. I'd be interested to hear others' comments.

By the way, I hasten to add that I have found Ancestry to be absolutely invaluable and they do an excellent job of keeping their data quality high. But that doesn't make them a reliable, secondary source for WP purpose.
EEng (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see where I am incorrect - I'm pretty sure that I said that the trees are user-generated and usually not reliable on their own. A good stepping stone to look for more data (e.g. an obit) but generally not too reliable in itself. – Connormah (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I took two things you said, put them in a blender, and turned them into hash. But, um, any other thoughts? EEng (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've hit it pretty much spot on. Thanks for explaining it so clearly. Slp1 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for taking so long to acknowledge the well-reasoned and well-written response of EEng but I have been slowed down by flu in recent days. It is good to have the perspective of another ancestry.com user who has also used that site extensively for academic research purposes. While I understand the WP guidelines and policies, at times I still struggle to implement some exactly because of that academic background. As historians we are urged to use primary sources but to be aware of secondary sources. In fact, a review of literature is often the initial step. We are trained to handle primary sources carefully. I have had to accept that the standards for WP are less than that required for an academic journal, and that articles on WP are abalagous to those on a very good encyclopaedia. While I may have resrvations about some of the policies, and believe I can walk the line carefully, I am aware that there are many who would inflict great damage to both living persons and their relatives and to the WP project without such guidelines. Consequently, what seems most relevant here is not the user-generated rule (as it does not apply here), but rather the BLP protections and their special circumstances that further restrict use of primary sources. While I may easily cite poorly researched secondary sources as matters of concern, the rule would be to only use quality secondary sources. I appreciate the contributions and especially the tone of those contributions.smjwalsh (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your flu and I am glad you are feeling better. Thanks for your comments and conclusions too, which are very well-expressed. My only quibble is that I guess I wouldn't say that "the standards for WP are less than that required for an academic journal" but rather that they are different. This is, as you point out, an encyclopedia, and the role of an encyclopedia is to summarize the existing research rather than engage in new research itself. In addition, in an open project such as this where we have no ideas of the abilities and qualifications of editors, we have to focus in published secondary sources, in order to minimize the danger of editors' interpreting and analyzing the data improperly. Slp1 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and concern. Your comments summarise the situation accurately. Different publications require different standards. Different is just that - different.smjwalsh (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Emilie Autumn excursis

What exactly am I missing here in regards to "user-generated"? What does that even mean in regard to the information being accurate, and who are these "users" (also why would they fabricate information)? These argument to be somewhat blunt is silly. The California Birth Index as well as the Texas Birth Index are databases related to Ancestry.com and FamilyTreeLegends. These are among the most reliable of sources in regard to accurate birthdates. If these violate WP:BLPPRIMARY then no references should be allowed at all as reliable sources on Wikipedia, which would obviously not be beneficial. And who exactly are these "wiki-masters of knowledge" that get to ban these munificent sources of information for adding accurate dates of birth? Kardthrow (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want people to respond, you might want to consider not formatting your message in all-boldface, since that could be construed as the Net equivalent of shouting, much like all-caps. Nightscream (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You're funny. Yes I am shouting because people on here AREN'T GETTING MY VALID POINT: (this is copy & pasted from the RS Noticeboard)

google "fritzges emilie autumn" and you will find NUMEROUS DIFFERENT websites showing Frizges to be her surname. google "emilie autumn 1977" and far more results show up then "emilie autumn 1979". google "emilie autumn california" and you'll see she was born in that state. then head on over to the CA Birth Index and put in "emily fritzges" (she spells her real first name with a Y). Do you get where I'm going with this?

In summary to all the idiots on here who don't get it: EMILY A FRITZGES IS THE SAME PERSON AS MUSICAL ARTIST EMILIE AUTUMN - WITH A DOB OF 9/22/77. YET STUBBORN WIKI ADMINS ( BY THE WAY nobody has answered my question yet as to to who these "higher-up" wiki people or "admins" are and why THEY GET TO DECIDE a reliable source is banned from being used ) WHO MOST LIKELY HAVE NO LIVES AND SURF WIKIPEDIA ALL DAY LONG FROM THEIR MOM'S BASEMENTS GET TO REVERT ACCURATE EDITS TO WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. Kardthrow (talk) 22:24, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if you feel that people "aren't getting your point". Screaming at people with all-caps, all-boldface and calling them "idiots" is a violating of Wikipedia's Civility policy, and is more likely to get you blocked from editing than to get people to answer your questions. Please do not make that necessary. If you really want people to answer your questions--and I'd be more than happy to--then calm down, and stop screaming and insulting people, and raise your questions in a polite, civil manner. And please sign your talk page posts. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kardthrow, I sense your frustration and at times even share it. WP is a community and all communities need rules if they are to function effectively and if the rights of the minority are to be protected. As relates to THIS article, I believe we've moved on from the discussion of whether ancestry.com is user-generated or not. The consensus seems to be that as a whole it is not. The point you make about Birth Indexes (Indices?) is well-taken. They are by and large accurate with the caveat that the correct person is identified). I had never heard of Emilie Autumn but read the WP article and Talk page and can now understand your position. You advance a defensible position and are probably right. Unfortunately in WP truth is NOT enough, it must be verifiable. The WP community's consensus is that reliable secondary sources are the preferred way to do that (note not all secondary sources are reliable, even those coming from the subject of an article as people can be self-serving and embellish or distort). Further, due to legal reasons, WP has a strict policy in relation to Living People. To avoid lawsuits (among other reasons), it has adopted very strict guidelines. Consequently, the dedicated WP editor has to work hard to find those reliable secondary sources. IMHO if you have access to public records that can still be a useful tool to help your investigation to find those soures. Finally, I have found it more productive to be civil even in the face of unmitigated incivility. It makes the community a more enjoyable experience for everyone. If you're right AND civil, most often you will get the results you desire, and the admins etc will have your back. smjwalsh (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

............................................

I have a few questions for users Nightscream and Smjwalsh (I appreciate both your kind words by the way). First I must say that as a reader of Wikipedia with a somewhat encyclopedic memory I can remember seeing numerous times poor references used (and often times NO references for dates of birth used) that have remained on Wikipedia for YEARS and what initially prompted me to jump into this conversation is I noticed a DOB change in the Emilie Autumn article (who for the record I am not a fan of ) from 1977 to to 1979. I then clicked on the history page and viewed the deleted reference which was for CA Birth Index which I am familiar with as a very reliable source for people's birthdates. I grew up in Eureka and have used it for looking up people I grew up with and I can tell you the information on their is accurate from personal experience. So when I saw a user (C.Fred) change the 99% accurate DOB back to the incorrect DOB I figured I would chime in on this "injustice".

I share your experience of seeing poorly sourced and inaccuarte info backed by erroneous sources. What generally happens is that editors are free to BE BOLD and make non-controversial changes, but if challenged have the onus to support their changes with RS. If two editors have conflicting RS then the matter should be discussed on the article's talk page until a consensus is reached. It may be that all birth date info is removed until the matter is resolved. Given a choice, I would back the official records almost every time (there are exceptions - I have seen evidence of people lying about their birth date on wedding certificates, military enlistments, and as a consequence errors on SS and death records). smjwalsh (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So my questions are the following:

Please elaborate if you can what "reliable secondary sources" exactly are.

Some secondary sources are better than others. Recent scholarly books or articles are more likely to be accurate than very old sources eg 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica is less accurate than (say) the 2001 version. Some newspapers have a better reputation than others eg NYT better than National Enquirer. It is not to say that this is invariably accurate, but I think you get the gist.smjwalsh (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone who is more knowledgable than me please explain what EXACTLY "user-generated" means and why user-generated websites are not allowed on Wikipedia?

User-generated refers to websites like WP where editors can add their own content. IMDb is such a website. There are many others. Because such web sites are not under professional editorial control they are more likely to be inaccuate than one under the editorial oversight of a professional. Having said that, some user-generated sites are better than others. WE like to think WP is such a site, but despite that WP cannot be used as a RS in WP.smjwalsh (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"I believe we've moved on from the discussion of whether ancestry.com is user-generated or not. The consensus seems to be that as a whole it is not." - What does this mean and why then is ancestry.com banned?

An edit on this article was reverted on the basis that the source was from ancestry.com with the rationale given that it was a user-generated site. Please see above discussion. The editor looked at RFS and saw the contributions of others and concluded it was user-generated. Subsequent to that I believe the editor now understands ancrestry.com is not exclusively user-generated. While it was acknowledged that the primary sources comprising official records were not user-generated, the discussion shifted to the permissibility of using primary sources (possible if done so carefully) to restrictions caused by BLP policies, and the specific prohibition at using certain official records. As it is WP policy, individual admins and editors cannot just ignore. However, a concerned editor could seek to change the policy.smjwalsh (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"If you're right AND civil, most often you will get the results you desire" So are you saying that the Birth Index edit of the Emily Autumn article would stay if I was more civil?

I wish that was true :) I'm one of the most civil editors you will ever encounter on WP. Notice the nuance of my answer: most often you will get what you want. Being right and proving you are right are two very different things. The onus is on the one who challenges or changes the long-term position to conclusively demonstrate the rationale for the change if challenged. It makes it much harder unfortunately, but worthwhile. I have triumphed on similar matters for Solomon Burke, Lois Weber, and Lydia Cornell. Persevere with patient persistence.smjwalsh (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Battle Toad"?

I think this "Battle Toad" nickname is vandalism. I've seen a running joke about an annoying person calling the shop in which Rick answers and the caller keeps asking about the availability of "battle toads". This edit seems based on that joke. Mal7798 (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It is vandalism. A series of vandals (or one vandal using a floating IP) has been vandalizing the Pawn Stars article since December of last year. I've protected the article for that reason. I just forgot to remove the vandalism after doing so. Thanks for pointing it out. Nightscream (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Article Protection and Composition

I read the article "Rick Harrison" and found many sentences that are ambiguous. The ambiguous sentences are do to the proper name: "Harrison". Also, I think that the composition can stand much improvement. I don't understand why this page is lock when it's painfully obvious that this page needs significantly more work done to it. This is very puzzling and frustrating. Yosemite Todd (talk) 10:03, August 14, 2012

I assume it's locked to anon editors because of vandalism (see above)> Had you signed this comment, you would be notified automatically of my response. I'm sure there is much that needs to be done to improve this article.smjwalsh (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I indeed protected the article because of vandalism. Nightscream (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2012

The Harrison family relocated to Las Vegas, Nevada in April 1981 after the collapse of his parents' real estate business. When Harrison was 17 he accidentally impregated his girl friend Kim. Despite a subsequent miscarriage, Harrison and KIm decided to marry.

Should be...

The Harrison family relocated to Las Vegas, Nevada in April 1981 after the collapse of his parents' real estate business. When Harrison was 17, he accidentally impregated his girl friend Kim. Despite a subsequent miscarriage, Harrison and Kim decided to marry. ewechtal (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't you have just fixed it yourself? Or least have said "There's a comma missing after the word '17'"? I had to scan the two versions you provided several times to see what the difference was. Nightscream (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, the words impregnated and girlfriend are misspelled, and the "i" in Kim's name was capitalized, and therefore needed to be lowercased. Nightscream (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Already done - removing template to clean-up category. — Deon^talk 08:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2013

Rick Harrison was born March 22, 1965. 72.78.186.106 (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CS. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found a lot of people saying that it is actually January 1, 1965, so really what that tells me is nobody knows for sure.Zdawg1029 (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found a reliable source which gives his birthday as June 2, 1965, so that's what I'm going with.68.174.21.149 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rick is my daughter's father in law. His DOB is indeed 3/22/65

Edit request - year store opened

The Gold & Silver Pawn Shop was opened in 1989, not 1988, as the article incorrectly states two times in the article - in the lead and in the Career section. That's wrong. Actually, Rick Harrison received a license to pawn in April 1988, but the store did not actually open for business until 1989. Please correct the year in both places. Also, I would recommend changing the word "founded" to "opened" in both places. Here is the source to verify this information, which is used in the Pawn Stars article:

<ref name="Las Vegas Weeky 2010">{{cite news|last=Katsilometes|first=John|title=Pawn shop boys|url=http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2010/apr/08/pawn-shop-boys/|accessdate=June 14, 2013|newspaper=Las Vegas Weekly|date=April 8, 2010}}</ref>

You can just paste the full cite above right next to the year in the first usage, and just use <ref name="Las Vegas Weeky 2010"/> next to the year in the second usage.

Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2017

you need to put that he owns a pawn shop 64.58.250.2 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Read the first sentence of the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Daughter

Rick Harrison of Pawn Stars has a daughter. Her name is Saria. I have watched the episode where he builds her a house for her new puppy. Not sure about when the episode would have aired. I just started watching Pawn Stars. Trust me, except for being unsure if I have her name spelled correctly I am 100% sure of her existence. 65.188.123.55 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)