| Revision as of 08:23, 2 June 2012 editKumioko (talk | contribs)76,062 edits Merge WikiProject United States Supported banners and cleanup using AWB (8062)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:12, 16 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,281,854 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Foer, Franklin|1= | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography | {{WikiProject Biography}} | ||
| |living=yes | |||
| |class=stub | |||
| |priority= | |||
| |listas=Foer, Franklin | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Journalism}} | {{WikiProject Journalism}} | ||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low|Columbia=yes|Columbia-importance=Low}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Scott Thomas == | == Scott Thomas == | ||
| I'm convinced that the Scott Thomas coverage isn't appropriate in this article right now. In fact, I would say that it is actually a violation of ] to include substantial coverage of it here right now instead of only in the TNR article. Why? First, no wrongdoing by Foer has been demonstrated, only alleged. Second, as time goes on and more details are released (such as the identity of the soldier who wrote the piece, which was released today), it seems more and more clear that this is a non-controversy and that Foer and TNR did nothing wrong. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this is a ''New Republic'' controversy, not a Franklin Foer controversy, at least right now. Unless someone can provide ] ] that Foer (not TNR, not Scott Thomas, but Foer) has actually done something wrong (and these sources don't exist right now), it should be discussed at the TNR article, but not in this one. Again, I am concerned with the biographies of living persons policy. '''· < |
I'm convinced that the Scott Thomas coverage isn't appropriate in this article right now. In fact, I would say that it is actually a violation of ] to include substantial coverage of it here right now instead of only in the TNR article. Why? First, no wrongdoing by Foer has been demonstrated, only alleged. Second, as time goes on and more details are released (such as the identity of the soldier who wrote the piece, which was released today), it seems more and more clear that this is a non-controversy and that Foer and TNR did nothing wrong. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this is a ''New Republic'' controversy, not a Franklin Foer controversy, at least right now. Unless someone can provide ] ] that Foer (not TNR, not Scott Thomas, but Foer) has actually done something wrong (and these sources don't exist right now), it should be discussed at the TNR article, but not in this one. Again, I am concerned with the biographies of living persons policy. '''· ]''' '']'' 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :To follow up on that, I would add ] to the list of policies I'm concerned with. Perhaps one sentence talking about the allegations would be appropriate in this article, so long as it is appropriately referenced and phrased. Something like, "In July of 2007, after TNR published an article by an American soldier in Iraq titled "Shock Troops", allegations of inadequate fact-checking were leveled against Foer by conservative critics who alleged that the author of the piece was not an American soldier, though later events confirmed his identity." As it was, however, the Thomas coverage was nearly dominating this article. '''· < |
:To follow up on that, I would add ] to the list of policies I'm concerned with. Perhaps one sentence talking about the allegations would be appropriate in this article, so long as it is appropriately referenced and phrased. Something like, "In July of 2007, after TNR published an article by an American soldier in Iraq titled "Shock Troops", allegations of inadequate fact-checking were leveled against Foer by conservative critics who alleged that the author of the piece was not an American soldier, though later events confirmed his identity." As it was, however, the Thomas coverage was nearly dominating this article. '''· ]''' '']'' 14:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| The controversy centers of Foer because he was the journalist and editor who decided to publish the "Scott Thomas" diaries. If the stories are true Foer is vindicated. If not, then it is mostly about him. I agree that this is a story unfolding, but it should be left alone and written in a neutral format and then revised with time. Factcheckingfreak. | The controversy centers of Foer because he was the journalist and editor who decided to publish the "Scott Thomas" diaries. If the stories are true Foer is vindicated. If not, then it is mostly about him. I agree that this is a story unfolding, but it should be left alone and written in a neutral format and then revised with time. Factcheckingfreak. | ||
| :That doesn't address the ] concern, however. Nor is it a reason to include blog lings in the external links, and it really doesn't get around the BLP concern, either, since you're saying "well, this might be about Foer, and it might be nothing". BLP supports removing the information from this article (but not TNR) right now in that case. '''· < |
:That doesn't address the ] concern, however. Nor is it a reason to include blog lings in the external links, and it really doesn't get around the BLP concern, either, since you're saying "well, this might be about Foer, and it might be nothing". BLP supports removing the information from this article (but not TNR) right now in that case. '''· ]''' '']'' 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Current events tend to get undue weight and, no matter what his other accomplishments, this event is (as far as I know) the only thing getting Foer's name into ''The New York Times'', ''The Washington Post'', etc. That said, the two-sentence blurb there now adds some balance, and some of the links could be removed. The NYT link is only there to prove notability and the blog link could be obtained through ]. However, the previous version of the two sentences was ''very'' POV: It called all critics "conservative." It claimed that the critics all claimed that "Thomas" wasn't a soldier (when one wrote and others concurred, that he might be a soldier, and, if he was, Thomas' defenders would claim that the critics' primary objection was that he wasn't a soldier, not that he fabricated stories). And, sure enough, this entry said — without evidence — that critics objected that he wasn't a soldier. It's the facts, not the author's identity, that are important in this case, and few if any critics ever said otherwise. Spinning it to be the reverse — now ''that's'' a violation of ]. ] 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | ::Current events tend to get undue weight and, no matter what his other accomplishments, this event is (as far as I know) the only thing getting Foer's name into ''The New York Times'', ''The Washington Post'', etc. That said, the two-sentence blurb there now adds some balance, and some of the links could be removed. The NYT link is only there to prove notability and the blog link could be obtained through ]. However, the previous version of the two sentences was ''very'' POV: It called all critics "conservative." It claimed that the critics all claimed that "Thomas" wasn't a soldier (when one wrote and others concurred, that he might be a soldier, and, if he was, Thomas' defenders would claim that the critics' primary objection was that he wasn't a soldier, not that he fabricated stories). And, sure enough, this entry said — without evidence — that critics objected that he wasn't a soldier. It's the facts, not the author's identity, that are important in this case, and few if any critics ever said otherwise. Spinning it to be the reverse — now ''that's'' a violation of ]. ] 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::The ''Weekly Standard'' published plenty of allegations that Thomas isn't a soldier (before his ID was revealed) . That article is already linked in this Misplaced Pages article. So, with all due respect, do not claim that I inserted a "lie" into this article or otherwise violated BLP by claiming that conservative critics questioned Thomas' identity as a soldier. '''· < |
:::The ''Weekly Standard'' published plenty of allegations that Thomas isn't a soldier (before his ID was revealed) . That article is already linked in this Misplaced Pages article. So, with all due respect, do not claim that I inserted a "lie" into this article or otherwise violated BLP by claiming that conservative critics questioned Thomas' identity as a soldier. '''· ]''' '']'' 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::That's kind of silly. You link to dozens of letters ''to'' Weekly Standard and say that there are ''some'' that accuse him of not being a soldier (though I couldn't find any in a brief skim of your link), and ''that's'' your source that the primary objection to Thomas was that he "was not an American soldier"? That's a blatant misrepresentation of his critics, in a way that some of his critics if it came out that he was, indeed, a soldier. One can parse it in such a way that you could argue against it being a "lie" — so perhaps that's not word I should have used — but it is highly misleading and misrepresentative. It would be like saying, "Critics of Clinton's perjury objected to the way he stuck a cigar into an orifice of someone other than his wife": Arguably true, but not exactly representative of the crux of the situation at hand. ] 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | ::::That's kind of silly. You link to dozens of letters ''to'' Weekly Standard and say that there are ''some'' that accuse him of not being a soldier (though I couldn't find any in a brief skim of your link), and ''that's'' your source that the primary objection to Thomas was that he "was not an American soldier"? That's a blatant misrepresentation of his critics, in a way that some of his critics if it came out that he was, indeed, a soldier. One can parse it in such a way that you could argue against it being a "lie" — so perhaps that's not word I should have used — but it is highly misleading and misrepresentative. It would be like saying, "Critics of Clinton's perjury objected to the way he stuck a cigar into an orifice of someone other than his wife": Arguably true, but not exactly representative of the crux of the situation at hand. ] 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Actually, from where I'm sitting, it's "kind of silly" to presume that the conservative "milbloggers", as TWS refers to them, would *not* question whether Thomas was a soldier. In any event, the allegations were made and I noted them in this article. I have no opinion as to the "primary objection" raised by these writers. I'll drop it here, as I don't object to the article's current wording. '''· < |
:::::Actually, from where I'm sitting, it's "kind of silly" to presume that the conservative "milbloggers", as TWS refers to them, would *not* question whether Thomas was a soldier. In any event, the allegations were made and I noted them in this article. I have no opinion as to the "primary objection" raised by these writers. I'll drop it here, as I don't object to the article's current wording. '''· ]''' '']'' 00:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Fixed it for ya == | == Fixed it for ya == | ||
| Line 46: | Line 41: | ||
| The dispute is between version and version, with by ]. On the one hand, it is declared that it is necessary by ] to source the fact, say, that the subject wrote a certain book. On the other hand, that the extent to which this is taken is absurd. Instead of constructive dialogue there has just been reverting back and forth. ] | ] 04:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | The dispute is between version and version, with by ]. On the one hand, it is declared that it is necessary by ] to source the fact, say, that the subject wrote a certain book. On the other hand, that the extent to which this is taken is absurd. Instead of constructive dialogue there has just been reverting back and forth. ] | ] 04:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Reply to RFC''' The first version is easily verified. But is RFC really preferable to mediation or a third opinion for resolving edit wars? ] (]) 06:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | *'''Reply to RFC''' The first version is easily verified. But is RFC really preferable to mediation or a third opinion for resolving edit wars? ] (]) 06:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *''Controversial'' material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed; obvious material need not be sourced at all, challenged uncontroversial material should be given a cite requested tag. ] <small>(]</small> 05:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | *''Controversial'' material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed; obvious material need not be sourced at all, challenged uncontroversial material should be given a cite requested tag. ] <small>(]</small> 05:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *I see nothing in the first version of the article that should raise any sort of ] issue. ], while important, explicitly allows that uncontroversial and straightforward material does not require additional sourcing beyond the author's own website. Biographical statements such as what university he graduated from should be independently referenced, certainly, but a lack of reference doesn't mean it needs to come out of the article unless it's actually being disputed; it can just be tagged {{tl|cn}}. Book ''titles'', however, do not need additional referencing beyond his own website, as it's explicitly not in any author's self-interest to misrepresent them at all. ] (]) 00:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | *I see nothing in the first version of the article that should raise any sort of ] issue. ], while important, explicitly allows that uncontroversial and straightforward material does not require additional sourcing beyond the author's own website. Biographical statements such as what university he graduated from should be independently referenced, certainly, but a lack of reference doesn't mean it needs to come out of the article unless it's actually being disputed; it can just be tagged {{tl|cn}}. Book ''titles'', however, do not need additional referencing beyond his own website, as it's explicitly not in any author's self-interest to misrepresent them at all. ] (]) 00:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:12, 16 November 2024
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Scott Thomas
I'm convinced that the Scott Thomas coverage isn't appropriate in this article right now. In fact, I would say that it is actually a violation of BLP to include substantial coverage of it here right now instead of only in the TNR article. Why? First, no wrongdoing by Foer has been demonstrated, only alleged. Second, as time goes on and more details are released (such as the identity of the soldier who wrote the piece, which was released today), it seems more and more clear that this is a non-controversy and that Foer and TNR did nothing wrong. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this is a New Republic controversy, not a Franklin Foer controversy, at least right now. Unless someone can provide reliable sources verifying that Foer (not TNR, not Scott Thomas, but Foer) has actually done something wrong (and these sources don't exist right now), it should be discussed at the TNR article, but not in this one. Again, I am concerned with the biographies of living persons policy. · jersyko talk 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- To follow up on that, I would add WP:UNDUE to the list of policies I'm concerned with. Perhaps one sentence talking about the allegations would be appropriate in this article, so long as it is appropriately referenced and phrased. Something like, "In July of 2007, after TNR published an article by an American soldier in Iraq titled "Shock Troops", allegations of inadequate fact-checking were leveled against Foer by conservative critics who alleged that the author of the piece was not an American soldier, though later events confirmed his identity." As it was, however, the Thomas coverage was nearly dominating this article. · jersyko talk 14:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The controversy centers of Foer because he was the journalist and editor who decided to publish the "Scott Thomas" diaries. If the stories are true Foer is vindicated. If not, then it is mostly about him. I agree that this is a story unfolding, but it should be left alone and written in a neutral format and then revised with time. Factcheckingfreak.
- That doesn't address the WP:UNDUE concern, however. Nor is it a reason to include blog lings in the external links, and it really doesn't get around the BLP concern, either, since you're saying "well, this might be about Foer, and it might be nothing". BLP supports removing the information from this article (but not TNR) right now in that case. · jersyko talk 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Current events tend to get undue weight and, no matter what his other accomplishments, this event is (as far as I know) the only thing getting Foer's name into The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. That said, the two-sentence blurb there now adds some balance, and some of the links could be removed. The NYT link is only there to prove notability and the blog link could be obtained through Scott Thomas Beauchamp. However, the previous version of the two sentences was very POV: It called all critics "conservative." It claimed that the critics all claimed that "Thomas" wasn't a soldier (when one wrote and others concurred, that he might be a soldier, and, if he was, Thomas' defenders would claim that the critics' primary objection was that he wasn't a soldier, not that he fabricated stories). And, sure enough, this entry said — without evidence — that critics objected that he wasn't a soldier. It's the facts, not the author's identity, that are important in this case, and few if any critics ever said otherwise. Spinning it to be the reverse — now that's a violation of WP:BLP. Calbaer 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Weekly Standard published plenty of allegations that Thomas isn't a soldier (before his ID was revealed) here. That article is already linked in this Misplaced Pages article. So, with all due respect, do not claim that I inserted a "lie" into this article or otherwise violated BLP by claiming that conservative critics questioned Thomas' identity as a soldier. · jersyko talk 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's kind of silly. You link to dozens of letters to Weekly Standard and say that there are some that accuse him of not being a soldier (though I couldn't find any in a brief skim of your link), and that's your source that the primary objection to Thomas was that he "was not an American soldier"? That's a blatant misrepresentation of his critics, in a way that some of his critics accurately predicted would happen if it came out that he was, indeed, a soldier. One can parse it in such a way that you could argue against it being a "lie" — so perhaps that's not word I should have used — but it is highly misleading and misrepresentative. It would be like saying, "Critics of Clinton's perjury objected to the way he stuck a cigar into an orifice of someone other than his wife": Arguably true, but not exactly representative of the crux of the situation at hand. Calbaer 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, from where I'm sitting, it's "kind of silly" to presume that the conservative "milbloggers", as TWS refers to them, would *not* question whether Thomas was a soldier. In any event, the allegations were made and I noted them in this article. I have no opinion as to the "primary objection" raised by these writers. I'll drop it here, as I don't object to the article's current wording. · jersyko talk 00:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's kind of silly. You link to dozens of letters to Weekly Standard and say that there are some that accuse him of not being a soldier (though I couldn't find any in a brief skim of your link), and that's your source that the primary objection to Thomas was that he "was not an American soldier"? That's a blatant misrepresentation of his critics, in a way that some of his critics accurately predicted would happen if it came out that he was, indeed, a soldier. One can parse it in such a way that you could argue against it being a "lie" — so perhaps that's not word I should have used — but it is highly misleading and misrepresentative. It would be like saying, "Critics of Clinton's perjury objected to the way he stuck a cigar into an orifice of someone other than his wife": Arguably true, but not exactly representative of the crux of the situation at hand. Calbaer 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Weekly Standard published plenty of allegations that Thomas isn't a soldier (before his ID was revealed) here. That article is already linked in this Misplaced Pages article. So, with all due respect, do not claim that I inserted a "lie" into this article or otherwise violated BLP by claiming that conservative critics questioned Thomas' identity as a soldier. · jersyko talk 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Current events tend to get undue weight and, no matter what his other accomplishments, this event is (as far as I know) the only thing getting Foer's name into The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. That said, the two-sentence blurb there now adds some balance, and some of the links could be removed. The NYT link is only there to prove notability and the blog link could be obtained through Scott Thomas Beauchamp. However, the previous version of the two sentences was very POV: It called all critics "conservative." It claimed that the critics all claimed that "Thomas" wasn't a soldier (when one wrote and others concurred, that he might be a soldier, and, if he was, Thomas' defenders would claim that the critics' primary objection was that he wasn't a soldier, not that he fabricated stories). And, sure enough, this entry said — without evidence — that critics objected that he wasn't a soldier. It's the facts, not the author's identity, that are important in this case, and few if any critics ever said otherwise. Spinning it to be the reverse — now that's a violation of WP:BLP. Calbaer 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it for ya
Misplaced Pages is not a forum for those with a political axe to grind. The entry is a biography of the man, so I removed the Scott Thomas material. Get over it already.
- Just a heads up. This article has been edited by someone who is personally involved with the Scott Thomas controversy. Bluemarine (aka Matt Sanchez), is the "former porn actor turned blogger" was a conctroversial source for some of the negative information about Beauchamp. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Removal of unsourced information.
What is remotely controversial about this version? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's not controversial, it's unsourced as explained by edit summaries: "removed unsourced material per wp:blp", " rm unsourced info again per wp:v and wp:blp.", and "rv per wp:v's burden of evidence.". -- Jeandré, 2008-11-30t19:36z
- That is a ridiculous standard for editing and one which isn't applied to anything like this ludicrous standard across Wiki.
- But, if Jeandre wants to, let me point him to another article containing numerous 'unsourced' facts so he can hack away at that, leaving only those things corroborated by a superscript number:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/Frank_Rich
- The fact is, if this standard were applied to the ad absurdum degree Jeandre has done here, there would very few useful biographical articles on Wiki.
- Deleting easily verifiable, well known, and non-controversial information and doing so as selectively as he does is stupid, self-defeating and unnecessary and I will continue reinstating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.74.222 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-30t23:00:39z
Request for comment
The dispute is between this version and this version, with this by reductio ad absurdum. On the one hand, it is declared that it is necessary by Misplaced Pages:Verifiability to source the fact, say, that the subject wrote a certain book. On the other hand, that the extent to which this is taken is absurd. Instead of constructive dialogue there has just been reverting back and forth. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Reply to RFC The first version is easily verified. But is RFC really preferable to mediation or a third opinion for resolving edit wars? RayAYang (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed; obvious material need not be sourced at all, challenged uncontroversial material should be given a cite requested tag. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see nothing in the first version of the article that should raise any sort of WP:BLP issue. WP:RS, while important, explicitly allows that uncontroversial and straightforward material does not require additional sourcing beyond the author's own website. Biographical statements such as what university he graduated from should be independently referenced, certainly, but a lack of reference doesn't mean it needs to come out of the article unless it's actually being disputed; it can just be tagged {{cn}}. Book titles, however, do not need additional referencing beyond his own website, as it's explicitly not in any author's self-interest to misrepresent them at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Previously uninvolved RFC comment. Why not just get sources? Here are some that may be useful: (NYT article when Foer named to TNR), (Foer's family), (Slate article largely on Foer, mentioning controversy—there's several sources on this, but the Slate one is closer to him and mentions his tenure there), (on Foer/controversy—heavy bias on the second, keep it out). It appears he has also been on the Charlie Rose show a few times. Just source it—it's easy enough. Surely he also has a bio with his degree and all of the accolades. Cool Hand Luke 06:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Categories:- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- C-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- C-Class Columbia University articles
- Low-importance Columbia University articles
- WikiProject Columbia University articles