:::::::I did exclude sources in my suggested edit, an attempt to focus on the ''content'' of the lead, I have now includes sources that back these simple facts.
:::::::I did exclude sources in my suggested edit, an attempt to focus on the ''content'' of the lead, I have now includes sources that back these simple facts.
:::::::Looking forward to your thoughts! [[User:Gabriellemcnell|Gabriellemcnell]] ([[User talk:Gabriellemcnell|talk]]) 21:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Looking forward to your thoughts! [[User:Gabriellemcnell|Gabriellemcnell]] ([[User talk:Gabriellemcnell|talk]]) 21:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Per the guideline at [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments]], please do not modify your own comments after another editor has responded to them, as that can make it very difficult for other editors to follow the conversation. Please revert your edit and restore "Suggested Lead Edit v2". You can then present your newest proposal in a new paragraph or section. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
== Suggested Lead Edit v3 ==
== Suggested Lead Edit v3 ==
Revisionasof21:55,19June2024
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
What does the doll look like? Are there any suitably licensed photos for Wikipedia to use? 86.174.188.81 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC) There is a photo of Robert on his Wikipedia page, but he curses everyone who takes a pic of him without his permission, so pray that whoever took the pic on the page asked permission first.[reply]
Interview where Don Mancini, creator of the Child's Play franchise, says that "Chucky" was inspired by earlier films and not "Robert", and was not originally written as being a 'voodoo' doll:
This article isn't very developed and is missing a tone of information on its subject including it's history, and references in popular culture which need to be added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this page be protected. There's a growing edit war of people trying to add a section about films based on the doll, and it seems consensus is to have no such section 134340Goat (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should add a section either here or in the article itself for users to apologize for looking at this photo of Robert without his express permission. It's known that bad things happen to people who do and neglect to apologize. 2600:1017:B125:79A4:D53A:14C2:B7D1:ECCB (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tajotep has added an infobox to this article. I'm not sure this is desirable. The infobox doesn't really convey a lot of information, and I think "infobox toy" is intended for a kind of toy (like "Rubik's Cube" or a particular Lego set), not a specific individual toy. The "Company" field looks a bit out of place in this case. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. I added it because I find it more appropiate, but I won't discuss the removal of the infobox. Anyway, thanks for discussing it first. Tajotep (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LuckyLouie, thank you for reviewing the Robert (doll) page and notifying me of your concerns with my latest edit. All information within the update I attempted to publish is backed by credible and independent sources. The WP:FRIND sources you listed as Panicd.com, phantom press, youtube, robertthedoll.org, are all in place alongside other legitimate, independent sources to further cite the information as culturally relevant. My edit to Robert's page is solely to update and inform the cultural relevance and historical significance of such a doll. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All information within the update I attempted to publish is backed by credible and independent sources. The WP:FRIND sources you listed... No, the sources I listed were notWP:FRIND. They were examples of what are not credible or independent sources, and your edits intentionally or unintentionally were lending credibility to supernatural claims. This tells me you may have a problem with English comprehension or some other issue. Editing WP:FRINGE topics such as supposedly haunted dolls can be a steep learning curve (see WP:NOTNEUTRAL). I suggest you start editing articles about some noncontroversial topic to familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's polices before you attempt to improve WP:FRINGE articles. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding reverted edits,[1] it's against WP:OR, WP:V, WP:COPYLINK, WP:FRINGE, and the tone of an encyclopedia to say that "William Shatner tempted fate in 2012 by mocking" a "reputedly haunted doll", cited to an online pirate copy of "Weird or What?" hosted by William Shatner. Rjjiii (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
June 2024
@User:Gabriellemcnell I noticed this edit where you cut and paste a new version of the article to the Talk page for review, which was reverted because, well, there are better ways to suggest changes. From what I saw, there are some big problems with your proposed rewrite. Come-on's like "Robert's popularity has grown immensely due to his reputation for cursing anyone who disrespects him" and "he is believed to be the world's most terrifying haunted doll" have no place in the lead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a clickbait site or a carnival sideshow.
Most sources you propose to cite are not reliable for the purpose of building an NPOV article. Some examples:
Key West Weekly - a local story promoting the museum’s $29 tour: “The Robert the Doll Experience”. Not actual journalism but silly WP:SENSATIONALism, with lines like “the 4-foot-tall, straw-stuffed figure is one of Key West’s oldest surviving residents, although he’s never drawn a breath — or has he?“
Artist House Key West Inn a commercial B&B site promising paranormal encounters, i.e. not a reliable source: "All is well as you relax on the ample king size bed, then – quietly, a semblance of a beautiful women walks down the meandering staircase in her wedding dress. A ghost in the room! If apparitions and the strange pique your interest you are not alone."
Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. It's not in the business of giving credulous treatment to superstitious beliefs. When it comes to WP:FRINGE topics (and a doll supposedly with supernatural abilities haunting and cursing people is definitely a fringe topic) we look to sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, sources that have no investment in selling tours or room reservations or convincing people that ghosts are real. We call these WP:FRIND sources. I have not located any WP:FRIND sources for this topic. Typically, a lack of any sources that critique or analyze the subject indicates it is not taken seriously by expert sources, and so may not be notable. So the encyclopedia is a bit challenged to cover this topic in an NPOV manner.
That said, we are presently using some WP:PRIMARY sources such as KWAH.org for noncontroversial facts, and in a very limited way. We cannot cite it for sensational claims and promotional hype about the doll such as you have proposed.
Note that the "History" section of the article only reports relevant and verifiable facts such as the doll's origin, owners, location, etc. Trying to mix supernatural claims into this section such as you have attempted isn't appropriate. The article has a separate section documenting the "Legend" where we frame the supernatural claims as claims. We're careful to use NPOV language when describing these claims a legend and not reality. We also avoid WP:UNDUE weight on such claims, which naturally limits the amount of coverage the encyclopedia gives to such details which typically accompany paranormal hype.
Also it's not enough to say you (an editor) think the subject has historical and cultural significance. Third party secondary WP:FRIND sources must explicitly state this conclusion so we can cite them and summarize what they say.
Sorry this sounds like a lecture but I'll mention this again: Wikipedia's byzantine editorial policies and guidelines incorporate a great many subtleties not readily apparent to a new editor. It's a steep learning curve. I don't recommend you choose as your goal a rewrite of an existing article as your first edit, especially one in a WP:FRINGE topic area. You said you want to correct inaccurate or outdated misinformation you feel is presently contained in the article. Perhaps you can list these here on the Talk page, and we can discuss them one at a time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicion is that the editor in question is somehow connected to business that the doll is housed in and is attempting to use the article as promotion, hence the barking. The other account making the same exact changes even has a name that indicates they look after a doll. NJZombie (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They did mention they are working with the Key West Art and Historical Society who are the foremost experts, and rights holders, on Robert, which could mean that the KWAHS "rights holders" assume they have exclusive control of the content of the Wikipedia article (this usually happens at BLPs where the subject of an article or their legal representative shows up on the Talk page and demands editorial control). I also think they misunderstand WP:COI. Claiming that KWAHS interest in Robert is solely for preservation and accessibility purposes. There is no financial motive for them regarding Robert would only make sense if the museum didn't charge admission fees or offer special $29 Robert-focused tours. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply interested in updating Robert's page as I have the utmost respect for phenomena of this sort.
My capacity in working with the Key West Art and Historical Society is limited, they have merely allowed me access to primary source documentation that supports Robert's true origins and cultural significance. As they are the foremost experts on Robert, they are the ones with the most accurate information.
You've touched on my point that the KWAHS is interested in preservation and accessibility and come back saying this "would only make sense if the museum didn't charge admission fees or offer special $29 Robert-focused tours". This point is arbitrary as the East Martello Museum and the Key West Art and Historical Society are separate organizations operating on separate missions. The KWAHS promotes all attractions surrounding Key West as a cultural center. I am not affiliated with the East Martello Museum.
@Donald Albury's point Unless and until they try again to add questionable material to the article, I'm willing to let sleeping ducks lie" is troublesome to me as I'm dedicated to updating Robert's page as an independent editor, and your qualms seem to be concerning my personal experience..
I'd like to continue discussing my proposed changes and get Robert's page sorted properly. Please do look at my suggested lead edit v2 and kindly let me know if there is anything of issue within.
The additions to the lead that you are proposing in "Suggested Lead Edit 2" do not have any counterpart in the body of the article, and are completely unsourced. The guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section clearly states, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The changes you propose are NOT "basic facts", would require extraordinary sources, and would still be subject to editorial judgement on the due weight of such content. Donald Albury18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The additions do not currently have any counterpart in the article because the article, as it is, leaves out crucial information relevant to Robert.
It is a basic fact that Robert is at the East Martello Museum because of his haunted reputation, and it is a basic fact that visitors of the museum write letters to him - a rarity among museum attractions.
I did exclude sources in my suggested edit, an attempt to focus on the content of the lead, I have now includes sources that back these simple facts.
Per the guideline at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments, please do not modify your own comments after another editor has responded to them, as that can make it very difficult for other editors to follow the conversation. Please revert your edit and restore "Suggested Lead Edit v2". You can then present your newest proposal in a new paragraph or section. Donald Albury21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested Lead Edit v3
Hi!
Altering my proposed edit as user @DonaldAldbury raised an issue with the lack of sources and user @AndyTheGrump raised an issue with Robert's affiliation with the East Martello Museum:
The lead in this article leaves out some crucial information about Robert and his current status. I'd like to suggest the following edit to the lead:
Robert the Doll is an allegedly haunted doll exhibited at the East Martello Museum in Key West, Florida. Robert was once owned by painter, author, and Key West resident Robert Eugene Otto. He was brought to the museum after supposed hauntings, maintaining status as a paranormal phenomenon[1]. Robert has daily visitors, thousands of which have written letters addressed directly to him[2].