This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jersyko (talk | contribs) at 14:00, 26 July 2007 (→Scott Thomas: follow up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:00, 26 July 2007 by Jersyko (talk | contribs) (→Scott Thomas: follow up)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Template:WikiProject Columbia University
Biography Stub‑class | |||||||
|
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 was nearly dominating this article. · jersyko talk 14:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)