Revision as of 20:12, 16 May 2013 editDA1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,789 edits →Excessive Detail and Narrative Style← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:24, 16 May 2013 edit undoDA1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,789 edits →Excessive Detail and Narrative StyleNext edit → | ||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
::Regardless of whether there is some RS journalism published on the IBT website, the cited web page is opinion and promotion and is not RS news reporting: . ] ] 12:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | ::Regardless of whether there is some RS journalism published on the IBT website, the cited web page is opinion and promotion and is not RS news reporting: . ] ] 12:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::From sounds more like that was a journalistic report, if rather enthusiastic. The next sentence ref is the problematic one. I've encouraged the editor whose been active here to come join the discussion since this except for watching out for actual BLP violations I'm not heavily invested in this article. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> | :::From sounds more like that was a journalistic report, if rather enthusiastic. The next sentence ref is the problematic one. I've encouraged the editor whose been active here to come join the discussion since this except for watching out for actual BLP violations I'm not heavily invested in this article. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> | ||
:Please elaborate your concern. I may not fully engage in discussion today (if its long), as I'm kind of busy, but I will eventually get around to answering it by tomorrow night for sure. ] (]) 20:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: Okay, I actually read all of your comments. For some reason I only read Moore's comment and misses Specifico's. Yes, i concur with the other user that IBTimes is reliable. Also, i have been doing extensive research and comparison between sources/links before deciding to put one to a given line on the article. And what I've seen, some of the other articles out there are more fluffed up than this one you may have concern over (which i believe is unwarranted). I know for a fact that around 500 people attended, 300+ of whom were veterans (this is based on numerous YT vids by Kokesh himself). However, some of the other articles out there (and not many articles out there, the incident was very under-reported) state either NO attendance figures or that over the thousands. IBTimes, actually mentioned a reliable attendance number without exaggeration or non-specificity. ] (]) 20:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:24, 16 May 2013
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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives | |
|
|
Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.kokeshforcongress.com/.
Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
possible sources
- "Marine Vet Faces Hearing Over Protest," By Heather Hollingsworth. Associated Press Thursday, May 31, 2007. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
"Adam vs The Man" section
That whole section is incredibly biased, and barely states what the show is about. All it seems to do is highlight how RT is controversial. 97.125.86.17 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it was a biased presentation and have made more NPOV. People can follow links for the praise and/or "dirt" on both Russia Today and Accuracy in Media. This article doesn't have to do it for POV purposes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
TJ dance party
There are two entries for this. One in the protest section, and one in adam vs the man. The first entry was in the protest section, which one should this one be in?--72.175.115.246 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Both have been removed but I added it back in the protest section. There is no reason to remove this from the article like it previously was. The new source is from Fox News in D.C.--Hellogoodsir (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
TJ dance party
I was at the TJ Dance Party. There were over a thousand demonstrators, easy, and there is a TON of video proof out there on the internet; Just go looking. Also, Over a hundred of us danced *inside* the rotunda uninterrupted and without harassment from the US Parks Police, who actually went out of their way to NOT interact with the dancers. Even in the Washington Post video article, you can plainly see they are inside the monument. Your wiki on this event is wholly misrepresented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.17.117 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/dancing-protesters-return-to-jefferson-memorial-060411 @ 1:40 "More than 40 minutes after the dancing started, the last three protesters left their own". Please properly represent this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.17.117 (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Report on RT cancellation
News with views has a report. I don't know how WP:RS it is, though searching the general URL find quote a few articles, including BLP, do use it. I'm not too driven to put it in but FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that site is RS but it has plenty of good links, including one from Politico that reports on the cancellation of the "show".
- -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Read the whole article and find the links? I don't need to read no stinking... har har. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Explain Advert and Unreliable Source tags
User:Plot Spoiler put them on the other day but I don't see those problems and unless he explains specifically what needs to be fixed, the tags will be removed soon. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 03:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Was just checking this. I don't see the reason either. Removed tags now. For anyone wish to add them then explain on the talk page. Regards, SunCreator 14:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Revamp
This is response to the unwarranted "revert" attempt by a certain user. I have edited the article in purely productive manner. I have replaced several dead links with alternative and archived links (this required a lot of time/effort on my part). I have cleaned up certain areas and added newer citations to them. I have also added a "Personal background" section, where I have moved the info about his father, and added more info on background and family. I have also decided to break up and divide the "Protest activities" section into smaller sub-sections divided by year. And plan to add a few more protest events to that list/section. DA1 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not be offended by a revert of your changes. I suggest you make the changes in smaller increments so that other editors can easily see what you've done and how you have rearranged content. IfThe edits can be unclear or time-consuming to decipher when many small changes are done in a single edit and general summary. Also please discuss content and edits and avoid references to other editors. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I actually tried to include larger swathes per edit, because I've seen in the past how certain users advise to use "show preview" section rather than making individual edits. I will try to be more descriptive in my edit summaries. However, I would like you to preview/analyze my edits and see if i removed anything of importance or not. I can assure you, I only added info, rearranged certain info, and mostly replaced/added links and cite. There were a lot of dead citations, and formatting inconsistencies, I spent last night and this morning fixing that. DA1 (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be frank, my level of interest in this article is not high enough to warrant the time it would take me to sort through a single compound edit. My quick impression is that some of your edits are constructive and add significant information but that others make the narrative obscure and take a somewhat promotional non-encyclopedic tone and style of language. Anyway, I think many smaller edits would engage more feedback for your work here, and please be mindful not to introduce "peacock" evaluative, or promotional language into the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- DA1: Not everyone defines peacock language the same. FYI. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be frank, my level of interest in this article is not high enough to warrant the time it would take me to sort through a single compound edit. My quick impression is that some of your edits are constructive and add significant information but that others make the narrative obscure and take a somewhat promotional non-encyclopedic tone and style of language. Anyway, I think many smaller edits would engage more feedback for your work here, and please be mindful not to introduce "peacock" evaluative, or promotional language into the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I actually tried to include larger swathes per edit, because I've seen in the past how certain users advise to use "show preview" section rather than making individual edits. I will try to be more descriptive in my edit summaries. However, I would like you to preview/analyze my edits and see if i removed anything of importance or not. I can assure you, I only added info, rearranged certain info, and mostly replaced/added links and cite. There were a lot of dead citations, and formatting inconsistencies, I spent last night and this morning fixing that. DA1 (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Excessive Detail and Narrative Style
The recent additions, particularly the sections captioned by year, have the tone of a real-time narrative or script rather than an encyclopedic summary of notable events. I think some condensation and removal of inessential detail would help this new content deliver the important facts more clearly. Also, some of the references do not appear to be WP:RS for the content cited to them, e.g. International Business Times "Rally a Success..." SPECIFICO talk 03:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- While year sections probably are not necessary and poorly sourced information should removed. But International Business Times is a perfectly good source. Any others problematic? The purpose of wikipedia is to share relevant information, including about notable people. I think a proper rendition of the VFW commander comments belongs there, if not necessarily as its own section. Just haven't gotten around to fixing it yet. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether there is some RS journalism published on the IBT website, the cited web page is opinion and promotion and is not RS news reporting: . SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- From the author's description on IBT sounds more like that was a journalistic report, if rather enthusiastic. The next sentence ref is the problematic one. I've encouraged the editor whose been active here to come join the discussion since this except for watching out for actual BLP violations I'm not heavily invested in this article. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽
- Regardless of whether there is some RS journalism published on the IBT website, the cited web page is opinion and promotion and is not RS news reporting: . SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please elaborate your concern. I may not fully engage in discussion today (if its long), as I'm kind of busy, but I will eventually get around to answering it by tomorrow night for sure. DA1 (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I actually read all of your comments. For some reason I only read Moore's comment and misses Specifico's. Yes, i concur with the other user that IBTimes is reliable. Also, i have been doing extensive research and comparison between sources/links before deciding to put one to a given line on the article. And what I've seen, some of the other articles out there are more fluffed up than this one you may have concern over (which i believe is unwarranted). I know for a fact that around 500 people attended, 300+ of whom were veterans (this is based on numerous YT vids by Kokesh himself). However, some of the other articles out there (and not many articles out there, the incident was very under-reported) state either NO attendance figures or that over the thousands. IBTimes, actually mentioned a reliable attendance number without exaggeration or non-specificity. DA1 (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles