User talk:DrFleischman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fyi[edit]

[1]

Russ Baker[edit]

I agree in general with your tagging of this article. However my sense is that it probably would squeak by the notability guidelines given that he had one major book widely reviewed. I may be wrong, but that's my sense. However, the article itself is a disaster area. You may also want to take a look at the offshoot article Family of Secrets. That would be three Wikipedia articles on a totally obscure person, his life and works. Really ghastly. If you look at the LA Times review of Family of Secrets,[2] WP:FRINGE is plainly applicable so I wonder if an AfD actually may be warranted for that book, and also if there is need for a substantial toning down of the text devoted to that in the Baker article. My participation in the project is sporadic nowadays but I will help as much as I can. Coretheapple (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts and the heads-up about those reviews---yikes, and I thought this guy was a respectable journalist! I don't think Family of Secrets should be deleted on fringe grounds, as it's a real, widely-reviewed book, not a fringe theory. But in light of these sources I think Russ Baker should be merged into that article. (And cut way down, to perhaps a sentence or two.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I actually was mulling proposing that the book and WhoWhatWhy be merged into Baker. The verdict on the latter was "no consensus," and even if it was "keep" that would not bar it from being merged. I'm not clear the book makes the cut. I just know of the L.A. Times review in terms of notable reviews. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
There's also the Washington Post review, and there may be more, I haven't looked. I could see both the book and WhoWhatWhy being merged into Baker, despite the fact that I haven't found any secondary sources on Baker himself. If we aggregate the book review sources and the WhoWhatWhy Project Censored source then at least we have an article with 3 reliable secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Atlas/ATLAS network[edit]

Fleishman, I'm confused about your nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 21#Atlas Network. Atlas Network is not actually a redirect, so I'm unclear what you are trying to do here. Please clarify. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a redirect when I proposed the deletion. I was told the proper way to address the issue to request a technical move, so I did, and the latter request was granted. Problem solved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Cite lead.[edit]

You say here that the claim (that it is done only be the GOP) is cited elsewhere in the article, but the claim is not even claimed elsewhere in the article. It it was there in the past it is not anymore-- so the claim in the lead looks like random vandalism.

If there is a RS somewhere in the article to back-up this claim, then it does no good when it is nowhere paired-up with the claim that needs the citation. tahc chat 03:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

On further review, you're right. I've added a {{cn}} tag and will look through the sources when I have a bit more time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarity[edit]

I'm reverting you because you edited Gandydancer's comments in a way that misrepresented him. He never commented on whether or not the information should appear in U.S. Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, only that it shouldn't appear in Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture. Do not edit other people's comments. Dragons flight (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for correcting me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wallace Hall[edit]

I think the article is slowly improving. One thought; the legislative influence over university admissions is the heart of the controversy. Absent that, it is clear that the legislators would not have come down on Hall so savagely. Rather than removing the section entirely I believe it would be better to find additional material and refs. With your agreement I will attempt to find proper material. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I could see a very limited amount of material about the broader controversy being re-included in the article, but only with very careful sourcing and phrasing that explains the connection to Hall. We have to be careful not to include content that is there only because it implies that Hall has been vindicated. That would be non-neutral synth, unless the sources actually say that Hall was vindicated. I'll take a look at whatever you come up with. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't seen any articles about vindication. There is a longform article in Texas Monthly about all this that I haven't finished yet. TM is a little lefty for my taste (it reminds me of a western version of Washington Monthly) but it really dives deep. I am finding this interesting though. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the story sounds intriguing from afar but I haven't had the bandwidth to dig into it. Do you have a link to the TM article handy? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
* Is This the Most Dangerous Man in Texas? Here it is. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)