This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 sourcedmust 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The lengthly list of references has been removed so the comments regarding this from the Wiki editorial staff can now be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The banners preceding the entry for Atwater should be removed. The article is now after several edits acceptable. It does not read like a resume, and the references indicate general areas in which Atwater has contributed to the archival literature. These need not be cited in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. These are an unnecessary distraction. Remove banners at top of page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi IPs. It's interesting that both IPs are from University of Oregon, so there's likely some issues with seeing this article from a neutral point of view. In any case, the article on Atwater is more a resume or CV than an encyclopedic article about the individual. There's no biographical information, just a listing of qualifications and articles published.
I'm more than happy to clean it up, but it will result in about three sentences of the article remaining, as the rest is not encyclopedic in nature. Maintenance templates are used to prompt interested editors, including vested editors, to make productive changes that will result in a more lengthy article than what I will otherwise do. tedder (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
As I see it, those most likely to have knowledge of the subject, i.e. contributors from the University of Oregon, Oregon State University, or the surrounding environs are discouraged from participating because of their presumed inability to embody a neutral point of view. However, by elimination of these contributors you also eliminate those most likely to possess the information required to make the specified changes regarding reference lists and the provision of more biographical information. Hence, it is highly probable that those non-Oregonians willing to edit the article will lack the required knowledge to make additions and will be limited to performing deletions. So be it. Would someone make the necessary deletions and bring this matter to a close? I suggest something like the following with a single reference link to the list of medal recipients:
"James E. Atwater is a North American physical scientist with training in geophysics, chemistry, and biology. He is the recipient of the 2006 Wright Brothers Medal for his work on the application of microwave power to solid waste treatment and resource recovery in support of long-term manned space missions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Contributing from UO/OSU/others is fine, but should be done from a neutral point of view, using citations to reliable sources, not based on first-hand knowledge or otherwise. Feel free to change that, but being a card catalog entry for Atwater isn't appropriate. tedder (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Would the wikipedia eluminati please consult the wikipedia entry for Tanya Atwater and explain why this entry is not resume-like while James Atwater's is. Similar standards should apply to all Atwaters.