Talk:Chambers stove/Archive 1

message: Very interesting piece of equipment. The article has to be written more neutral, though. See WP:NPOV. JRHorse 01:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Dispute 

message: I spent some time looking over the situation - these are points I'd like to raise to help resolve the situation.
#First, I believe this is a worthwhile article to have on Wikipedia. A bit obscure to a lot of people, but a Google search shows there is interest in this item - and I think this is exactly the sort of thing WP:PAPER was meant to cover.
#A problem is that, since this piece of equipment is relatively obscure, sources and neutral editors can be hard to come by. The two editors working on this article so far, Lowracer and John E. Chambers, both seem to be involved with websites that promote and/or discuss this particular product. Normally this would mean that they should not be editing this article per the conflict of interest guidelines - but I think that we're unlikely to find other editors to work on this article. So I think it's OK to for both to work on this so long as neither links to, or cites, his own website and are both are vigilant to maintain a neutral point of view.
#Some friction seems to exist because the two primary editors are, in essence, competitors off-wiki. I urge them to put their competitiveness aside, work together, and combine their resources in the interest of creating a great encyclopedia article.
#I spent some time looking at the proposed websites and references. First, I'm not a copyright expert by any stretch of the imagination, but from what I can find, I don't think we can link directly to the manuals, etc. on vintagechambers.com because it contains scanned material that is possibly in violation of copyright, per this policy. All material was produced after 1923 in the U.S., meaning it's not in the public domain. Also, as stated above, neither of the parties should be linking to their own website because this contravenes the WP:COI guidelines.
===Suggestions===
#For references, I suggest you return to the original printed material that was used as a resource to build your websites. For example, though we cannot link directly to the scanned product manuals, you can still cite the material in those manuals as a reference. WP:A, WP:FN, and WP:CITE provide the applicable guidance in doing this. The citation guidelines can be a little intimidating at first if you haven't dealt with them before, I'm willing to help. Books, magazine articles, etc. can also be cited as sources even if no online version exists.
#For external links, I suggest creating a category at the Open Directory Project and adding your websites there, then adding a link to DMOZ from this Wikipedia article (see the external links section of Chinese astrology for an example of this). There's not currently a category for antique or Chambers stoves at DMOZ (at least not that I could find) - but one could possibly be created in this category. Just an idea. This would provide a route for interested readers to find a way to these websites (and others, like antiquestoves.com) without the editors contravening the COI guidelines. 
Thoughts?
RJASE1  Talk  23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good - like I said, I'm no copyright lawyer. I do urge you to continue contributing! Also, by conflict of interest, I don't mean a conflict with another editor, but the conflict between off-wiki interests and writing a neutral encyclopedia. We all write about things we care about, that's not problem so long as we don't fall prey to the temptation of the Dark Side. RJASE1  Talk  23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion from [[User:RJASE1|RJASE1]] - external links 

message: #For references, I suggest you return to the original printed material that was used as a resource to build your websites. For example, though we cannot link directly to the scanned product manuals, you can still cite the material in those manuals as a reference. WP:A, WP:FN, and WP:CITE provide the applicable guidance in doing this. The citation guidelines can be a little intimidating at first if you haven't dealt with them before, I'm willing to help. Books, magazine articles, etc. can also be cited as sources even if no online version exists.
#For external links, I suggest creating a category at the Open Directory Project and adding your websites there, then adding a link to DMOZ from this Wikipedia article (see the external links section of Chinese astrology for an example of this). There's not currently a category for antique or Chambers stoves at DMOZ (at least not that I could find) - but one could possibly be created in this category. Just an idea. This would provide a route for interested readers to find a way to these websites (and others, like antiquestoves.com) without the editors contravening the COI guidelines. 
Thoughts?
RJASE1  Talk  23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Sounds good.  We can put in references but not link to any sites.  BTW the linked documents are in the public domain. Rutgers university Library maintains a database of copyright renewals and these copyrights were never renewed by their original owners. 
I'm declaring a truce with Mr. Chambers in this conflict of interest, and I am hereby abandoning any further editing of this page. Lowracer 23:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good - like I said, I'm no copyright lawyer. I do urge you to continue contributing! Also, by conflict of interest, I don't mean a conflict with another editor, but the conflict between off-wiki interests and writing a neutral encyclopedia. We all write about things we care about, that's not problem so long as we don't fall prey to the temptation of the Dark Side. RJASE1  Talk  23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Mr. Chambers removed a citation placed on the wiki page for Chambers stove.  This cite was placed there to confirm the fact that the Rangaire Corporation had Sold the Chambers Stove corporation to Hobart in 1983.  The document that was referenced was mainly about air conditioners but had a little table showing how certain appliance manufacturers were buying other manufacturers and the year of purchase.  I would appreciate it if Mr. Chambers would refrain from removing citations.  In the future, Mr. Chambers may want to add a citation from a better source.
thank you
fschimmel
fschimmel 04:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I think the big graphic in the middle of the page is a bit much.   It's too big and it's very hard to read the tiny print.   Also there is a link to its location on a for-profit website, that is unacceptable.
I also think the big CHAMBERS logo up at the top is an unfitting touch for an encyclopedia article.  It doesn't belong.  I'd like to get a neutral 3rd party in here so I'm contacting RJASE1.
Neutral third opinion: The big picture has to go. Maybe rewrite some of the things that it includes in the article. As for the logo, make it a standard thumbnail size, and put it at the top right of the article. Unrelated side note: This article has no lead paragraph... or even sentence? - hmwithtalk 11:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics 

message: I am responding to the request for a third opinion. I am not User:RJASE1 but have read his/her previous comments.
*As far as the large image demonstrating the features of the item, this is very interesting and would, I think, be an appropriate graphic. However I am concerned that it breaches copyright. The image page at  states that the originator of the image releases it for distribution. I think this is unlikely. The person who scanned the image may well be happy to release it, but they did not in fact produce the image: that person is the anonymous author of the catalogue from the ?1960s.
*As for the company logo, there are good precedents for using analogous images to illustrate articles. As one example, see Ford Motor Company. However that article also shows a bit more restraint in the size and placing of the logo. A common convention is that these should be about 200 pixels wide, at the top right of a page. Often (as with Ford) at the head of an infobox. There is no problem with copyright as logos to illustrate an article are permitted.
This opinion is unsigned as per the policy on the WP:Third opinion page. 11:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you require assistance with converting, editing or otherwise making a new free-use image I'd be more than glad to help you.  I found this talk through the third option page posting, and I would wholeheartedly agree that if an image can be created that satisfies the concerns of both users that would solve the problem amicably it would be best for all involved.  Wintermut3 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion on graphics 

message: With regard to the addition of original research on this article, I offer the following:
When we discussed this before, RJASE1 indicated that bona fide historians devoted exclusively to Chambers were not likely to be found, therefore those of us who have an interest in it were the most likely candidates to be contributors, as long as we make sure the article stays neutral. I think this is wise and also very fair, so I included this eye-witness account because no published history of the Chambers Corporation exists at this time. Leaving it out leaves a 30+ year hole in the history section, which, in my estimation, is not beneficial to the reader.
I have been able to locate the son of one of the Flato brothers that bought the Chambers Corp. He is attempting to provide information - such a SEC documents - that would substantiate the dates in question.
I would hope this inclusion will be allowed until we can find additional documentation. John E. Chambers 16:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly my reading of the wikipedia policies. Normally such materials would not be allowed, but the policies recognise that in certain cases such materials are the only evidence available. In such extreme cases certain individuals may use such materials. This is to avoid the moon-is-made-of-cheese letter senario (if I scanned in a letter from Buzz Aldrin saying that the moon was made of cheese then it's unverifiable, but if Carl Sagan scanned it in then it would be acceptable). I don't doubt anyone's honesty here, but as you can see it's an exception to a policy with very tight guidelines on when the No Original Research policy can be ignored.ASH1977LAW 15:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no problem with this. Provided the article (in print) was not written by a contributer to the Chambers Stove wikipedia article then it's all good. It is certainly something to consider. I would suggest both parties involved contact magasines and publications, though not to submit articles themselvesASH1977LAW 15:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: Please do not revert each other's edits repeatedly.  If there is a conflict, work it out on this talk page.  Thank you. Chick Bowen 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated reverts