Talk:Ronald Kessler: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:12, 18 March 2008

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.

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

KesslerRonald (talk · contribs) / Kessler, Ronald Kessler, Ronald

NOTE: In response to the request for a photo, please see my photo uploaded to Wikipedia: Kessler_author_2005_med_res.jpg (file)

Autobiography

I am adding the autobiography tag since the subject appears to have edited the article extensively. TheslB (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also added the unreferenced tag since no sources are provided for the article. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, particularly due to the problem of conflict of interest, and I am tempted to put this one up for deletion. TheslB (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a prod from it--we do not delete notable people because of COI--rather, we edit the article and make sure there are adequate sources. DGG (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article lacks sources, notability is not established. In response to what you left on my talk page, we do not tell other editors to look for sources in order to remove material that is not properly referenced. This article has the makings of a press release, a vanity page, and the primary author of it has deleted similar concerns from this talk page already. Being that the article owes its existence to the author asking for it to be created from the content at his personal website, it really should not be here on Wikipedia. We discourage editors who have a conflict of interest from editing for a good reason. It looks bad--really bad, even when unconfirmed. Encouraging the retention of articles created and maintained with a COI undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. TheslB (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not originate the article but added to it by providing the material from my website. That material has been deleted, so now the article has only bare-bones biographial material. I have tried to be helpful by adding publicly avilable material such as the dates when my books were published and a link to my recent appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The biographical data appears in Who's Who's in America or can be easily checked with online sources such as Amazon or the Library of Congress. If you have any specific questions, please ask me.--Ronald Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.160.170 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following guidelines may be helpful to you Ronald: WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Good luck, 150.203.23.148 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Scrubbing

This article makes the news: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.69.2 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think two of the sections under Controversies should probably go anyway. The critical opinions of two commentators on minor websites don't really merit the weight they've been given, or at least not until they are suitably balanced with opinion from the other side. They certainly don't deserve equal weighting with the Obama section. I only reverted them because they, at least, were cited (which is more than can be said for the rest of the article) and their removal was not summarised with a valid reason. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable that he made up a falsehood, which made it into a national news report and circulated as a fact, was debunked, leading to corrections being issued, and then he personally tried to erase the incident from his own entry at wikipedia? This isn't opinion, it's just the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag of 'liberal' from Talking Points Memo because it's not true. However, I tend to agree with Escape_Orbit--reviews of a book from people who are almost certainly going to disagree with the author's premise don't really count as "controversy." The Obama thing should stay though because of the Bill Kristol blowup. - OSheaman

We should really solve this "controversies" dispute here in order to avoid an edit war. Joshdboz (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty well solved. The portion noting that he made up information and passed it as truth should remain, not least because he attempted to edit it himself. It's the source of a false accusation on a major presidential candidate in the United States--so you could argue it is notable. And TPM isn't really a 'bad' source as far as things go. 24.160.240.212 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a continuation on that thought, the "controversy" section should be renamed "recent controversy"24.160.240.212 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 02:10, 18 March 2008 edit 24.160.240.212 (talk) →‎Page Scrubbing ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:12, 18 March 2008 edit undo 24.160.240.212 (talk) →‎Page Scrubbing Next edit →
Line 30:		Line 30:

	It's pretty well solved. The portion noting that he made up information and passed it as truth should remain, not least because he attempted to edit it himself. It's the source of a false accusation on a major presidential candidate in the United States--so you could argue it is notable. And TPM isn't really a 'bad' source as far as things go. [[Special:Contributions/24.160.240.212\|24.160.240.212]] ([[User talk:24.160.240.212\|talk]]) 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)		It's pretty well solved. The portion noting that he made up information and passed it as truth should remain, not least because he attempted to edit it himself. It's the source of a false accusation on a major presidential candidate in the United States--so you could argue it is notable. And TPM isn't really a 'bad' source as far as things go. [[Special:Contributions/24.160.240.212\|24.160.240.212]] ([[User talk:24.160.240.212\|talk]]) 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

			As a continuation on that thought, the "controversy" section should be renamed "recent controversy"[[Special:Contributions/24.160.240.212\|24.160.240.212]] ([[User talk:24.160.240.212\|talk]]) 02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)