Talk:J. Leon Altemose

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the J. Leon Altemose article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Beginning

Given the amount of love/hate this guy generated in the 1970s and 1980s in the Philly area, I'm surprised we didn't have an article for him. I've given a bare bones start, with three solid refs to ward of deletion (there is a lot more available in the Inquirer, The Bulletin and Philadelphia Magazine, along with a few bits and pieces in industry press and larger newspapers in large cities.

I've used up the Inquy ref I provided, as I could not find a copy online. The other two are cited for future expansion. If anyone else wants to have at it, feel free. Otherwise, I'll be back in a few days.

I'm not sure how many people care about him anymore, though there might be a few with strong feelings out there. Keep an eye out for claims that are out of line with what the sources say.

I'll add a few redirects here, though Valley Forge Convention Center is probably notable enough on its own, with recent casino-related coverage and older sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

Resolved

Not resolved as long as you continue to keep the article heavily reliant on one source that is an obituary and fail to incorporate other sources. Saying it's resolved without doing any work is rather low of the editor who thinks it's 'resolved'.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that Altemose is notable, unless you have another point to make. Take it to AfD or we're done here. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't think this article needs improvement and flat-out refuse to do anything to improve it. How smug of you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not work to address your WP:POINT. You have directly stated you are not saying he isn't notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a pointy addition of a notability tag.

The other editor basically claimed coverage is limited to "hometown" coverage. In addition to the coverage in the article, there is a shitload more from places well outside of Altemose's suburban Philadelphia hometown.

A sampling:

Allentown Morning Call, "Partnership Headed By J. Leon Altemose Files For Chapter 11". 1 April 1989.[1]
Harper's Magazine, "Christmas List - A few hints for Hark". John Fischer, December 1972.
Altemose v. National Labor Relations Board, 14 March 1975.[2]
Philadelphia Inquirer, "Court Disagrees With Developer Over Affordable Housing Leon Altemose Said Laws In Charlestown Are Designed To Keep Out Renters. Officials Said Otherwise.", 14 January 1998.[3]
Construction Equipment Guide, "J. Leon Altemose, Right to Work Advocate, Dies". 30 April 2008.[4]
Ludington Daily News (Ludington, MI), "Contractor Fights Off Unions". 15 August 1973.[5]
Philadelphia Magazine, "The Last Union Town" February 2008.[6]
The Record (Bergen County, NJ), "Builder and Union Foe J. Leon Altemose, 68". 26 April 2008.[7]
Philadelphia's 'Black Mafia': A Social and Political History, p. 79. Springer, 2003.
National Review, "Goon City", 13 February 2013.[8]
Rome News-Tribune (Rome, GA), "Leon Altemose". 17 April 2008.[9]
Fox News, "Obituaries in the news". 15 April 2008.[10]
Chicago Tribune, "Economy Inns On Road To Comfortable Room Rates".[11]
Engineering News-record, Volume 194, Part 1, p. 5. McGraw-Hill, 1975.[12]

If you disagree on notability here, please take this directly to AfD to settle the non-issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your positing that the notability claim was pointy is disingenuous. If he's notable per those above sources, then incorporate them into the article to back up that notability. Instead, citing only one obituary and two local reporting pieces does not sufficiently establish notability in the article's current form.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not disingenuous; I am completely sincere. You did not begin challenging the notability of several articles I created immediately after I questioned the notability of an article you were involved with creating by chance alone. You are trying to make a point. You did not happen to use some of the language in my discussion of "your" article's notability by chance alone. You are trying to make a point. Having no abandoned the discussion on that article, you are continuing to press your point here.

Altemose is clearly notable. If you disagree, take the article to AfD. Otherwise, I'd ask that you stop wasting our time. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the subject is notable, and have sources above to establish it as indicated above, incorporate the sources above into the article. Currently, the article is not adequately sourced to establish notability (it has an obit and two local articles...not "significant coverage" mandated by WP:N. Do the work or stop opposing tags intended to improve the article. Simple. WP:AGF.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Altemose is clearly notable. If you disagree, take the article to AfD. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he is not notable, I am saying the article as written is lacking sufficient verification and establishment of his notability with sources. So, instead of complaining about your incorrect assumption of my critique, it would behoove you to use those references you cite above and incorporate them into the article you've produced to establish that notability and improve the article. That is, put a little effort into a lacking article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't saying he isn't notable? Then why tag the article for notability and instruct me as to what to do if I "believe the subject is notable"? Simple: to make a point. If you still disagree, take the article to AfD. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

refimprove tag added 20APR2013

I added a refimprove tag because unfortunately this article is too reliant on one article for its sourcing--an obituary article when the subject died. There are other articles that support this subject's notability and would broaden the reliable sources, but they do nothing here on the talk page and need to be incorporated into the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You pointily added a tag saying the article "needs additional citations for verification". Absolutely everything in the article cites a reliable source. What, at this point, do you feel is not verifiable? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already said why, if you want to be hostile to a suggestion for improvement of this article, perhaps you really can't assume good faith. Apparently, you'd rather not direct that energy toward improving a substandard article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did say why. You did it to be a dick.[13] Now you want me to assume you were being a dick in good faith and work to appease someone who was being a dick? Meanwhile, my good faith comments at the article you are so upset about are still being ignored. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As everything in the article cites a reliable source, I will remove the inappropriate tag shortly, if there is no explanation. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It relies too much on one source. Improve the article, because if you don't improve it but keep insisting to remove the tags, this becomes a WP:ANI matter.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the material in the article is verifiable. Your WP:POINT no longer has a point, now it is merely disruption. If you feel there is unsourced material, identify it. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fine by me. No sweat off my back. But the tag will stay until the article is improved beyond being heavily reliant on one source. If you deign to remove the tag without improving the article, well then, WP:ANI will sort that out.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my request: Your tag claims there is unverified information in the article. Please explain what material you feel is not sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered. Stop being deliberately obtuse. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not answered. Everything is verified. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tags added April 2013: improvement needed.

This article is badly sourced because it relies too heavily on one source (i.e. Downey, Sally and Jane M. Von Bergen. 16 April 2008, Philadelphia Inquirer, "J. Leon Altemose, controversial contractor, dies at 68"). Additional citations have been proffered on the talk page but the article's creator refuses to improve the article by incorporating them (q.v. supra) and implies that she/he would remove the tags without doing any work on the article to remedy these problems. I've asked for a better source with inline tags in the instances when that one source is cited.
This article largely comprised of passages cut-and-pasted or too closely paraphrased from that one source (the Philadelphia Inquirer article) and verges too close to problems under WP:COPYVIO. This can be solved by rewriting the article in an editor's own words instead of relying on a cut-and-paste job.
This article needs a swift copyediting because it's format mimics/copies the style format of that one source (q.v., the newspaper article, supra) as is often the case with outright plagiarism and non-original writing. It should be reorganized into appropriate sections preceded by a lede as per MOS. In its current format, the article looks like a bloated stub (q.v. WP:PERMASTUB)

If the article isn't improved, the tags should stay, and any attempt to remove them without improvement will be referred for an appropriate remedy/sanction.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As absolutely everything is cited, I have removed the tag to the contrary. Next up are the tags that say better source is needed than the Philadelphia Inquirer. The tag's link: "Sources that are usually not reliable". If you have any doubts that the Inquirer is a reliable source, you will need to establish that at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The refimprove tag was for "additional citations" because this article is one-sourced and plagiarised directly from that source, which is definitely not in keeping with wikipedia policies and guidelines. All you have to do is improve your article, and refrain from being deliberately obtuse. Your comments continue only exhibit your irrational resistence toward improving the article, and a open defiance to what Wikipedia stands for. Improve the article before you remove or your obstructive and detrimental conduct will be referred to WP:ANI.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one source tag (in place) is the request for additional sources. The tag I removed is for verifiability. Everything in the article is verified. The "Sources that are usually not reliable" tags on the Philadelphia Inquirer source are plainly wrong. All of this, of course, is part of you WP:POINT. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"needs additional citations for verification" tag in need of justification

Template:Refimprove "Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material, even if all the material is supported by a single citation." Unless you identify unreferenced material, I will remove this tag. Feel free to take this to any venue you feel appropriate if you disagree. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU'VE IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL CITATIONS, INCORPORATE THEM. REVISE THE ARTICLE SO IT ISN'T A BLATANT COPYVIO PROBLEM. SIMPLE. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address the issue. There is not unreferenced material here. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"copypaste" tag in need of justification

Unless you specifically show material that has been "copied and pasted", I will remove this tag. Feel free to take this to any venue you feel appropriate if you disagree. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS 95% WORD-FOR-WORD FROM THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER ARTICLE WITH NO ORIGINAL WRITING. THAT IS COPYVIO/PLAGIARISM. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are, quite simply, wrong. If the article is "95% WORD-FOR-WORD", as you are screaming, you should delete it as a copyright violation. As this is clearly not the case, I will be removing the tag. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins notified of Copyright violations.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"better sources needed" tags in need of justification

Template:Refimprove is for "sources that are lacking in quality". This is plainly absurd. I will remove the tag. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'VE STATED MY REASONS. YOU ARE ACTING BELLIGERENTLY ABSURD. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not stated why you believe the Philadelphia Inquirer is a source that is "usually not reliable". The tag does not apply. I will be removing them. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"layout guideline" tag needs explanatio

Please explain specifically what needs to be changed about the layout (or make the changes yourself). I see nothing wrong with the layout. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"strongly disputed" seems accurate

The wording "strongly disputed" has been marked as editorializing. Having read the sources and the article, please change this to reflect what you believe in a more neutral description of the picketing, hail of bricks, assaults and firebombings that accompanied this construction. Perhaps "violently disputed" would be more appropriate? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Disputes caused by the use of non-union" seems more factual than "strongly disputed". The references support the fact that he began using non-union employees and then there were disputes and protests (both violent and non-violent) at his construction site. I don't think this is a WP:Weasel statement. This will statement in the lede can be supported in the body as I expand the article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]