Talk:Philip Benedict

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

WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article was accepted on 19 January 2013 by reviewer Alexrexpvt (talk · contribs).
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Promotional tone and unhelpful sources[edit]

Adjectives such as "acclaimed" or "well-known" are peacock terms that only promote a subject without providing any information. While the section on Benedict's early life had sources mentioning both William S. Benedict and Ruth B. Benedict, the sources did not connect those people to Philip Benedict. We cannot take the similarity of names as evidence that those Benedicts were a family. Significant parts of the remainder of the article, including the promotionally-worded paragraph about the cours d'été, did not cite any references at all. I have (again) removed the content that wasn't supported by the sources. Huon (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the adjectives, please suggest others. Please do not remove whole sections. I am updating sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9194:2F2E:422D:9372 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Please restore content only when you have sources supporting that content, not before. Unreferenced content about living persons can be removed on sight, per WP:BLP. If we can find sources discussing Philip Benedict's parentage, my suggestion would be to simply omit those adjectives - the only reason to discuss, say, his father's acclaim in this article wold be in the context of a (sourced!) discussion of the impact being the son of an acclaimed physicist had on Philip Benedict. Huon (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That seems fair! I am one of his students. I noticed the page had trailed off a bit recently so I wanted to restore it. He is listed as an alumnus of Washington High, so I am going to put that back there (if that is okay with you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9194:2F2E:422D:9372 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I found the HS source! Pretty amazing what you can dig up with a little google time!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9194:2F2E:422D:9372 (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

One other quick correction -- I think you are misreading his CV. He started as a named chair as an Asst. Prof. at Brown. Then he was promoted to full professor. But he always had the named chair. That is what the "to" means on Academic CVs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9194:2F2E:422D:9372 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately it isn't. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and since the high school article's source doesn't actually say Benedict attended this high school, we should remove him from the list of alumni, not cite ourselves for that claim (if the source had said that Benedict attended this high school we could have re-used the source in this article; citing Wikipedia still would have been inappropriate). Regarding the named chair you're right. Huon (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't that seem a little weird to you? It seems that the place to challenge that is on the HS page, not on Phil Benedict's page. It's not really a problem though. I will call tomorrow and get the appropriate citation for his page in the HS yearbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9194:2F2E:422D:9372 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. The Post article actually refers to her family, so I don't see why this was removed. In the future, please do not remove information unless you have a valid reason. You can always add the "citation needed" tag to give others the chance to fill in information. There was no need to casually delete material from a page, especially since your reasons have been invalid on several occasions.

I added the appropriate citation for him attending Wilson HS. That would have been a perfect occasion to have used the "citation needed" tag -- since stating that a famous professor with a PhD graduated from HS is not a controversial statement. Regardless, I added the citation. So we should be all set now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:54A6:8CD2:408F:5C58 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This Washington Post article mentions Philip Benedict? Sorry, I don't see that; could you please quote the relevant sentence(s)?
Also, claims that this "famous professor" is the child of similarly famous parents and went to the same high school as Warren Buffet seem rather promotional to me. Wikipedia content should be a summary of what reliable, independent sources have reported about a subject; they shouldn't merely repeat the subject's claims about himself. Since you apparently prefer maintenance tags, I'll add those, but WP:BLP is unequivocal: Unsourced or badly-sourced content about living persons must be removed. Huon (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't self-promotional. He isn't promoting himself. I am reporting that he graduated from High School. Who cares if Buffett went there 20 years earlier? The article does not mention Buffett at all. There is nothing self-promotional about this whatsoever. There are at least five other major academic awards that he has won, none of which are listed on this Wiki page. If anyone was trying to promote him, they would have added those. Instead, we just want to summarized accurately some of the steps in the life of a very important scholar. All of the information is from reliable third party sources, including things published by the University of Geneva on their website.

Lots of Wiki pages say where the person went to school. Who are you to jump all over a poor professor? Why are you doing this? There isn't a single subjective claim in the teaching section. Not one. I honestly don't understand why you are doing on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:A924:1408:EAF7:F234 (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

He acknowledges his mother Ruth in Graphic History (p. vii), and his father in The Huguenot Population of France (dedication page - p. iii). It is really unreasonable for you to require that sort of proof of who his parents are. No other scholar is held to such a high standard. But if you really insist, feel free to stick the references in there yourself.
This grows tiring. You have not explained where the Washington Post article mentions Philip Benedict (it doesn't). There are no third-party sources discussing Philip Benedict's family; mentions in books Benedict himself wrote would not be considered secondary sources. The source mentioning his high school is a newspaper Benedict was associate editor of, not third-party coverage either. The sources for his "training" are his CV, his CV and, for a change, his CV, hosted on his faculty web page, written by himself, not subject to meaningful editorial oversight, definitely not a secondary source. The "Research" section has a single secondary source, the American Historical Association Guide to Historical Literature. The other sources are two societies reporting on awards they themselves bestow, plus a book by Benedict. The "Career" section is once again based only on Benedict's CV, which as explained above is not a secondary source. The "Teaching" section basically says, "Scholars from all over the world each year go on a pilgrimage to Geneva to study at the feet of their master Benedict", which is not a neutral tone (OK, this is worse than what the article actually says, but not by much), and the source for that claim is a University of Geneva web page that does not so much as mention Benedict. Finally, we're told Benedict supervised "important late medieval and early modern historians" - based, once again, on Benedict's CV. I do not think it's appropriate to cite Benedict for how important his students are. Finally we're left with a list of "notable" chapters and articles - who judged their notability? You? Benedict? Only a single such paper gives an indication of notability, having won an award - and the source is once again the organization bestowing the award, which is not a secondary source for its own award. So in summary, there is a single secondary source that mentions Benedict in an article that's to a very large degree based on his own CV. Yet you removed the maintenance tag I added without addressing the problem beyond claiming "Thirteen primary sources out of fourteen sources that mention Benedict is not all that much." I have to disagree. You also removed the "promotes the subject" tag without addressing that concern.
If those awards are significant, surely someone other than Benedict and the organizations bestowing them has written about them? If Benedict is a renowned teacher with many significant PhD students, surely there are independent reports explaining his significance in that regard? Where are the independent assessments of the impact of Benedict's work in peer-reviewed papers written by other historians? While it's nice of Benedict to acknowledge his parents, where are the third-party sources explaining the impact his parentage had on Benedict? In short, who but Benedict himself cares? Wikipedia content should focus on what third-party sources report, with primary sources used to flesh out uncontroversial details. "He was born to William S. and Ruth B. Benedict" would be such an uncontroversial detail for which a primary source might be acceptable. "He was born to the acclaimed William S. Benedict and well-known Ruth B. Benedict", not so much - that is promotional spam which you have re-added time and again. You may want to read WP:COI. Huon (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The CV is published by the University, not himself. It is third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There are many sources that discuss Benedict's work. But they are unnecessary for a simple Wikipedia page. The sources here are fully sufficient. He does not control the webpage on which these things are published. There is no reason for you to continue to vandalize this page. When the Washington Post publishes stories about a print collector, that means she is well known. The webpage for the Spectroscopy award calls him "widely acclaimed." These are all third party verifications. Come on man, you have to have better things to do with your life than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is indeed vandalism. You cannot seriously claim Benedict's employer is a secondary source about its employee, and I rather doubt Benedict does not control the content of his own CV published on his department's website. You're reverting every attempt to address the article's obvious shortcomings.Your latest comment is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. You keep parading the Washington Post article that does not mention Philip Benedict at all; neither does the Spectroscopy piece; see WP:SYN on why that's not appropriate. With that latest revert you removed sourced informaton. You re-introduced obvious tone issues. I'll ask for more community input at WP:BLP/N on how to deal with the article. Huon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is published by a University, not by Benedict. I don't care what "you rather doubt." Come on man. You have not established any consensus. You are just assuming your opinion is right and messing with other people's hard work. There are lots of Wikipedia pages, why are you messing with this one? You obviously don't know anything about the field. You didn't even know how to read a CV. Now you are claiming to know who is behind the CV (with no evidence). So what is your issue? Is this a personal thing for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9577:4AAB:113A:AEC7 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Establishing consensus" seems impossible if it's just you and me discussing the article. I have taken steps to remedy that and will take further steps to get more eyes on the page if necessary. Until that time, I'll simply say that I have no personal interest in this article or its subject beyond my general interest in improving the encyclopedia and removing spam or badly-sourced content whenever I see it. Huon (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Huon -- I have just discovered you got here after a prior dispute with the article's original author over the airplane article. It is not as if you just stumbled onto this page. That is why you arbitrarily deleted over half of the article just as soon as you saw it (instead of going through the necessary steps or making any attempt whatsoever to locate citations). Your entire experience here has been to delete and discredit, not to build up. It is clear you have a problem with someone else, and you are taking it out on this page.

As far as notable chapters and articles, many of them have won awards. They are published in big time journals. The man has published more real articles than you have published wikipedia pages. It doesn't make sense to list all of them. Here is the long and short of it. There isn't an aspect of this article that you don't have a problem with. Yet as you admit, no one else has a problem with it. You found this page after a conflict on a different article with another author. That isn't fair to Prof. Benedict or to anyone else. You didn't challenge any other name on the Wilson HS page, you just focussed on Benedict. You clearly have a personal issue that you are bringing over here in order to discredit a living person. That is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The relevance comes from the facts that the books won awards and Philip was supervising when he won awards. It is not synthetic reasoning. Please stop trying to destroy the teaching section of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talkcontribs) 15:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The Older Teaching Discussion (closed since March 1, 2015)[edit]

Hi Nomoskedasticity The latest version of the teaching section (which you deleted) contained updated sources. I think you may have overlooked the fact that his CV was not cited once in this entire section. Every single citation came from third party University press books (Harvard and Toronto) as well as University websites (one in North America, another in Europe). That is a lot of third party citations for two sentences. There are no superfluous adjectives or spammy tones. There is no reason to delete this, considering the proper citations were added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talkcontribs) 20:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No superfluous adjectives or spammy tones? Then who assessed the importance of those "important late medieval and early modern historians"? You? Themselves? Do you want to claim that his doctoral students' (or their employers') writings are independent sources for the importance of those same doctoral students? Huon (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a fair criticism. We should either provide links to the awards his students have won or remove the adjective. But there is no reason to remove an entire section. The four external third party links (none to his CV) are more than sufficient to prove that he taught these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talkcontribs) 19:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What we should provide is a reliable source that assesses Benedict's impact as a PhD advisor. Having PhD students is something of a given for a professor; which independent source noted Benedict's efforts in that area as something special and noteworthy? I have commented on the other half of the removed section before; the tone was unencyclopedic, and the source didn't even mention Benedict. (It wasn't independent either, of course; that's something of a given for this article.) Huon (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The Harvard Press and Toronto Press books do say his impact as an adviser. They mention that he was fundamental to their development. They are published by elite academic presses. How is this not sufficient proof? The section doesn't say he was the best supervisor ever. It just says he supervised them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talkcontribs) 20:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We have two sections on this talk page devoted to the teaching section. Just to keep things organized, let's try to put further discussion in the other section -- which is considerably longer (and more recent). (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Roelker Prize[edit]

What is your justification for removing the mention of his Roelker Prize? It is listed on the SCSC's website: Why not simply fix the link or add a tag? Why delete the whole thing? Isn't the impulse to destroy rather than fix the definition of vandalism?

My justification is that Faith, Fortune, and Social Structure in Seventeenth-Century Montpellier hasn't won the Roelker Prize, and the source doesn't say it has. The source says Graphic History: What Readers Knew and Were Taught in the Quarante Tableaux of Perrissin and Tororel won the Prize in 2006 (except they misspell the name of the paper; it's actually "Tortorel"), and I added that myself. Ask why they felt a need to revert that edit. I would agree that revert was vandalism. Removing incorrect information, however, isn't. Huon (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
For clarification: On Wikipedia, "vandalism" is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". If I were removing content to make Wikipedia worse, say by blanking a section and making it say "Penis!" instead, that would be vandalism. However, I'm removing badly-sourced promotional content, or even incorrect content, to make Wikipedia better. That's not vandalism. Conversely, turning an encyclopedia article into a promotional piece of puffery may be vandalism even if it makes the article longer. Huon (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain how Harvard and Toronto University Press books written by people who are not Phil Benedict are "badly sourced?" Can you also please explain how saying that he supervised people is "promotional?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

He supervised important researchers? How is that not promotional? And "people from institutions throughout Europe come to attend a conference he teaches at"? Just to see him?
Those books are by the people in question themselves; they are not a third-party assessment of Benedict's qualifications of a teacher. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume Benedict was a negligent PhD supervisor and gave grades by the roll of dice - those who "won" in this process would probably tend to still laud him. Conversely, let's assume he's a dedicated PhD supervisor who tries his best to help his students - those who fluke out still would tend to criticize him. Thus we cannot just take his students' assessment for his qualifications as a PhD supervisor. If Benedict is a notable teacher who ahs supervised many notable students, surely someone other than himself and them has commented on that aspect of his career? Huon (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The section is not about Benedict's "qualities as a teacher." They are about who he has taught. If he says he taught these people, then indeed that is a primary source. If someone else says in a University Press history book that he was their teacher, then that is a secondary source. If I used that same citation on the student's page, that would be a primary source. But since it is someone else writing about Benedict as a teacher, that makes it a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:854D:44EE:51D8:7641 (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The basic question is, who cares? Yes, he was advisor for some PhD students. So is practically every single professor I know. Hey, I myself feature on someone's list of PhD students, and I could easily write about having been taught by them on my website. Does that mean I should get mentioned in that professor's article? Hardly. Why are the PhD students remarkable in Benedict's case? Because he says so? Because they say so? (And no, people taught by Benedict discussing having been taught by Benedict are not secondary sources; see WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.) Huon (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
People who are interested in Phil Benedict care. I care. You obviously care. Otherwise you wouldn't be spending so much time on this page. But here is a basic question for you: what is your basis for deleting this information? At first you claimed that a CV produced by the University of Geneva was a primary source, even thought there is zero evidence that Philip Benedict wrote it. While this is disputed, you are entitled to your opinion. But then I deleted all mentions of the CV from this section. The sources are all from University Press books and a University website not at all associated with Phil Benedict (such as Reed College), as well as the website that discusses the cours d'été. So now that your initial stated reason for deleting the material has been removed, you are now claiming a different reason. So here are my two basic questions for you: 1) You came to this page to continue a fight you started with someone else on the Smisek page. Why are you punishing Phi Benedict for a dispute you have with someone else? 2) Why are you changing your rationale for deleting a perfectly well sourced section on his teaching?
I think you need to read that section more carefully:
Benedict talking about Benedict's teaching = Primary source.
Taylor talking about Benedict's teaching = Secondary source.
As WP:PRIMARY says, primary sources are not just sources written by the subject himself, but also those "by people who are directly involved" and "close to an event", like his employer's website or his students. What we'd need is an independent source for that section. His students are not independe And I can find myself asking for independent sources on this talk page as far back as February 26. Furthermore, I doubt Soldiers of Christ or Journey to the East: The Jesuit Mission to China, 1579–1724 discuss Benedict's teaching in any detail - at best the authors will mention Benedict among the acknowledgements.
Since you keep bringing up the "dispute" I had: That editor was a sockpuppeteer who used multiple accounts to add non-neutral, badly sourced content to a biographical article. Checking such an editor's contributions to see if similar problems occur elsewhere (and finding another non-neutral, badly sourced biographical article) is not "punishing Phi Benedict", nor is it "continuing a fight I started" - unless you mean the endless fight for a well-sourced, neutral encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You came here because of a dispute you had on another page. You are not here because you want to make the page better.

The policy does not say what you claim it says. Here is a direct quote: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." There are no interpretive claims or analysis in this section. Zero. The section does not claim that he is a good or bad teacher. It just says that he taught these students. That is not analysis. That is fact. Fact backed up by secondary sources -- History books published by two of the best university presses in the world.

Even if these were primary sources (and they ARE NOT primary sources!), this would still be allowable. Here is another direct quote from WP:PRIMARY : "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."RefHistory (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Roelker Prize -- Need Help filling in the doi and ISSN[edit]

I corrected the Roelker prize section by adding the appropriate article. But I am not sure how to add the doi or ISSN info. Could someone please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talkcontribs) 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I need help with two other formatting issues. Could someone volunteer their coding skills to fixing footnote #9? Finally, in the Roelker Prize article, I am having difficulty masking his name. For consistency's sake, it would be better if it would appear as "_______" just like the previous listings. But I don't have those coding skills. Can someone please lend a hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talkcontribs) 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Primary vs. Secondary Sources[edit]

There has been debate in the other sections of this talk page whether a CV published by Benedict's employer can be used on this page. Huon has even gone so far as arguing that history books authored by other scholars and published by two of the best University presses in the world are in fact primary sources. I disagree with this interpretation. Regardless, I would like to remind everyone of official wikipedia policy. This is a direct quote from WP:PRIMARY : "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

So the question is, are these sources reliable? Is the editor using the sources to make interpretations? Are they being misused? These are the questions that should frame these disputes. The use of primary sources does not merit the removal of material; only the misuse of primary sources merits action.

There is already a source tag at the top of the page. So there is no reason to remove this material unless you can argue that it isn't reliable.RefHistory (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No, A CV published by the employer is not a reliable source. the purpose of a CV is to be self promotional, and an employer has motivation to publicly enhance the reputation of those involved with it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Which specific line of this particular academic CV do you find unreliable? I have read it several times. It seems to accurately reflect his activities. It certainly isn't "self" promotional if he didn't publish it.
It is obviously "self" promotional for the organization to pimp the credentials of the people associated with it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
That word ("pimp") is completely inappropriate and over the top here. There is nothing promotional about a rather bland list of academic tasks performed.
If this were an article on the University of Geneva, then it would indeed be "self" promotional to cite their own website. But it isn't. This is an article on Phil Benedict. Since the page is published by an entity who isn't Phil Benedict, then it can't be "self" promotional. In fact, the University of Geneva's own Wikipedia page cites the UNIGE website several times. If you have a real issue with this, you should take it up there.
I am open to considering your position if you can identify a specific way in which this source was misused. For instance, was any of the information inaccurate? If so, then I guarantee you that I will be the first to delete the inaccurate information. But it is invalid to argue that a source published by a reputable university (founded in 1559) is entirely invalid without any specific evidence of inaccuracies or misuse. The source does not seem to violate Wikipedia policy WP:PRIMARY.
In the meantime, perhaps you could help out and demonstrate your good will by adding the doi and ISSN stuff. RefHistory (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Promotional and unencyclopedic tone not supported by the given sources[edit]

The article is still full of promotional, flowery language, particularly in parts not supported by the given sources. Problematic sources include:

  • The sources used for his parents may in fact discuss Benedict's parents - but we cannot tell since they don't mention that they are his parents. They don't mention Benedict at all, and the only reason I can think of why RefHistory would want to keep them is because they're among the only reliable third-party sources in the article - they only happen not to mention the subject. Policy violated: WP:SYN.
  • The sentence about "Graduate students, doctoral candidates, and professors travel[ing] to Geneva every summer from institutions across Europe and North America" is also supported by a source that does not mention Benedict. Rather, it's the official website of the institution holding that graduate school, not third-party coverage of that graduate school. Furthermore, the language is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article and portrays Benedict as the target of pilgrimage. If this is indeed a notable summer school, and Benedict's involvement is a significant part of his biography, we should find an independent source and reword the sentence to something along these lines: "Benedict is among the organizers of the Institut d'histoire de la Réformation's international graduate seminars (cours d'été)." Policies and guidelines currently violated: WP:V, WP:FLOWERY.
  • The section headings "Notable Articles" and "Notable Chapters in Edited Volumes" contain judgemental adjectives that should be removed. Also, Wikipedia does not use title case. If there's a need to point out that these are just some of Benedict's writings, we should use "Selected articles" and "Selected chapters in edited volumes". Guidelines currently violated here: WP:PEACOCK, MOS:HEADINGS.
  • The claim that Benedict "is the product of the Washington, D.C. public school system" is either a lengthy way to say nothing if it's meant to say he went to school in Washington D.C. (because we say so immediately afterwards anyway), or it's original research if it's meant to indicate that the public school system had a lasting and defining influence on Benedict - I don't have access to the yearbook, but the school newspaper definitely does not say so. That sentence should be reworded to something along the lines of, "He attended Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington, graduating in 1966", with exactly the same content and less verbosity. Policies and/or guidelines violated here: WP:FLOWERY, possibly WP:OR.

I had already fixed some of those issues and tagged others, but any attempt to edit this article gets quickly reverted by RefHistory, who displays ownership issues. If no explanation is forthcoming why the issues I pointed out are in fact compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines, I'll reintroduce my fixes and the tags. Huon (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You are the one displaying ownership WP:OWN ownership issues, Huon. The only reason you are here is that you had a disagreement with someone on another page. Now you are here to cause trouble. No matter how many changes are made, no matter how many sources are added, you still complain. You have even selectively removed Benedict from the alumni of Wilson HS, despite the fact that there is more evidence of him graduating there than anyone else on the list. You are clearly trying to take ownership based on a past grudge. This is vandalism.
  • The University Press books clearly state that Ruth and William were his parents. This is a reasonable use of sources. These books were published in elite academic presses. You already said this was sufficient earlier. How is this information inaccurate? Each parent is backed up by a reliable source. No synthesis is made.
  • You can change the word "notable" to "selected." I have no problem with that. But you can't delete all adjectives, because it is not an exhaustive list of his articles and chapters.
  • You are reading way too much into the Washington DC school system line. Nothing is implied. It does not violate any policies. There is no flowery language. There is no judgmental language. There is no original research. A secondary source (the yearbook) confirms it, as does the fact that he was an assoc. editor of the newspaper. This is a reasonable use of sources. Your quibbling here is a perfect demonstration of you harboring ownership issues. This language has been accepted for several years now. You are the only one who has raised issues with it. As such, I will revert any attempt for you to dominate this page without good cause. And there is no good reason to mess with that sentence.
  • The cours d'été application indeed indicates that students come from all over. The other source indicate that he teaches these courses.
  • You have consistently misstated Wikipedia policies. You need to cite a specific line from policy in order to claim that something is unallowable, especially since you already misstated about the policy on primary sources.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, let's start with the simplest issue: The sources currently cited for his parents. Do you agree that those sources do not mention Philip Benedict? If you don't, please provide quotes where they mention him. If you agree the sources do not mention him, do we also agree that no source belongs in the article that does not provide information on Philip Benedict? WP:SYN says, "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." If we want to say Benedict's mother was a well-known print collector, we need a source making that point, and not one that says his mother was Ruth B. Benedict, another that says Ruth B. Benedict was a print collector, and the "well-known" part is our own interpretation.

Additional sources have been added since I last looked at the page. The references that don't mention Philip Benedict are, as of the current revision, references 2 and 4. Those are the ones that should be gotten rid of. Huon (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Those sources were mentioned earlier. You already agreed they were sufficient. Now you seem to have an issue again. There is no reason to delete the NYT or the Benedict Award sources, since they verify the professions of the parents. You do not have a valid reason to delete this. The Benedict Award refers to him as a "renowned" astrophysicist. The NYT article refers to her as well known. These are not my own claims.RefHistory (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, that's not a NYT article but the Washington Post. Secondly, it does not refer to Ruth B. Benedict as "well known", despite your explicit claim. You also have not addressed the main point: Sources that do not mention Philip Benedict cannot be used to provide information about Benedict without engaging in original synthesis; if they do not provide information on Benedict there's no reason to cite them here. Huon (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It supports the fact that she was a print collector and medical doctor. People do not get Washington Post articles written about them if they are not well known. But following your logic, I suppose you would have no objection to including the adjective "widely acclaimed" to describe W. Benedict, as that is present in the source itself.RefHistory (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
That's original research regarding Ruth B. Benedict. My objection to the "widely acclaimed" is relevance: Please provide evidence that the acclaim of his father is relevant to the subject of this article. This isn't the article about William S. Benedict, and even true statements that aren't relevant to Philip Benedict should not be a part of this article. The same objection holds for all other content not supported by sources that draw a connection to Philip Benedict, of course, though we're getting to the point where almost all sources mention him at least in passing. Huon (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It isn't original research. It is a conclusion based on the circulation of the Washington Post. And you are dead wrong about his father's relevance. His father being a famous academic is relevant to the fact that he also became a famous academic. Benedict mentions the influence of his father's work in spectroscopy in the The Huguenot Population of France, 1600-1685. RefHistory (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"It is a conclusion based on the circulation of the Washington Post. " is precisely what WP:OR is and what is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Content in the article must be directly supported by the statements in the source without any extrapolation from Wikipedia editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The next issue is the school system. What information does the "product of the school system" provide in addition to "graduated from Woodrow Wilson High School in 1966"? I see none that's supported by any sources whatsoever. What's the use of adding nice-sounding words that impart no additional information? The cours d'été application has the same problem as the sources cited for his parents: It does not mention Benedict and should not be used here. If it's not meant to imply that those scholars come from all over to study with Benedict, it's as irrelevant to this article as a general source on tourism in Geneva; if it is meant to imply that, it violates the provision of WP:SYN I cited above. In addition, the cours d'été application is not a reliable source in the first place, unlike the article about his mother that does not mention him. Huon (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Schools produce graduates. They also produce drop-outs. In this case, Benedict was one of the graduates that the school produced. This isn't flowery language. This is just you freaking out and trying to claim ownership. The cours d'été application is no longer a source. I have found an article that demonstrates this. There is no synthesis in this section.RefHistory (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I have suggested an alternative wording that provides exactly the same information on Bendict's schooling as the one you prefer, with less redundancy. Could you please explain why you prefer yours? Huon (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Because there is no reason to change it. It has existed in its current form for several years. I am all in favor of making changes when necessary and appropriate. But here you are arguing purely on the basis of your own preferences. There is nothing wrong with it as it stands. Your desire to change it is based on ownership rather than need.RefHistory (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
So is there anything wrong with the version I proposed, and if so, what? Age alone is not a reason to keep the current version; I explained why I think mine is an improvement: Because it's less wordy while providing exactly the same information. Succinctness is a virtue in writing an encyclopedia. Unless you have an objection to my wording stronger than "the other was also okay", please do not revert. Huon (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The section is already succinct. You have no valid reason for changing this. You do not own the page. You can't delete the work of others--which has existed for several years--without a valid reason. I will revert it. Look, you came here after having a fight with someone else on another page. Your first action was to delete huge swathes of this page. No citation tags . . . no consensus . . . no attempt to add better sources . . . just massive deletions. And now you want to make another change without any valid reason whatsoever. I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable. You do not own this page, you came here because of a fight with someone else on another page, you have no interest in Phil Benedict on his own terms, and the material you wish to delete has been there for years. I will revert. RefHistory (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding ownership, you aren't just reverting me - you're reverting everybody who edits the page and changes it away from your preferred version. TheRedPenOfDoom agreed with my assessment of the quality of your sources - and was reverted. If you and I took leave of the article, others would make it look more like what I'd prefer, not what you'd prefer. Before you go and report someone to WP:ANI, I'd strongly advise you to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG. Huon (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. I have worked cooperatively and collaboratively with Strongjam. I have not reverted your most recent edit -- as you worked through the proper channels to achieve consensus before making the changes. But if you are intent on simply deleting large swathes of information (as you have been in the past), then of course I am going to revert. Constructive edits are welcome. Destructive and disruptive edits are not. TheRedPenOfDoom deleted huge areas of the text without providing a valid reason or working through the proper editing process. He received a warning for this.RefHistory (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, if you claim I'm "consistently misstating policy", please provide specific examples of me misstating policy. I have provided lengthy quotes on what WP:PRIMARY has to say, and those are entirely correct. It also says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." This article is primarily based on primary sources, not "to a lesser extent", and that's not even discussing issues of reliability. Huon (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I already have. You claimed that Wikipedia does not allow for the use of primary sources. Then you tried to use this claim to delete valid sources. But your claim simply isn't true. I cited specific language in the policy that disproved your false claims. This article is not based primarily on primary source claims. The CV is published by Benedict's former employer. His ex-employer lists things that he has accomplished. That is a secondary source. We have a fundamental disagreement about this. And even if it is a primary source (which it isn't) then the onus is on you to prove that there are inaccuracies or unreliable content. Absent that proof, the sources stay. You need to show how a sentence violates a specific clause in Wikipedia policy. Just throwing a policy up on the talk board is not evidence. Be specific.RefHistory (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Diff or it didn't happen. What I really said was: "Wikipedia content should focus on what third-party sources report, with primary sources used to flesh out uncontroversial details." That's entirely in line with the quote I gave above, and with the gist of WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." I have not removed a single reliable source that said what it was cited for and mentioned Philip Benedict., on the other hand, who I assume is you before you created your account, was so eager to remove entirely valid maintenance tags that they reverted improvements of the article in the process, such as the archive URL I added, or the addition of the paper that really won the Roelker Prize. I grow tired of your constant ad-hominem attacks. Trying to personalize this dispute about the appropriate use of sources and about tone will not work. Huon (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The article does not rely primarily on primary source material. As of right now, there are 5 references to his CV. There are currently 25 references to other sources. Think about that for just a second. 25 vs. 5. That is a 5 to 1 ratio. So I have no idea how you could claim that it based "primarily" on PM sources, even if you count the CV as a primary source (which it isn't). And if you haven't been paying attention, many of the CV references are being replaced or augmented. There is no controversy in the facts that the CV is being used to support. If you can point out an inaccuracy or a specific way the source is being misused, I will be the first to change it. I've already done this several times.
You accused me of having consistently misstated policy. Please provide evidence, backed up by diffs, or retract that accusation. Also, please explain how the definition of primary sources at WP:PRIMARY, which I have cited before, does not apply to a CV published by his (former) employer, written while Benedict still was an employee. It's not the only primary source, either, by far. Huon (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The current version, which is cited, was not written when he was still an employee. The CV lists him as emeritus. It is written by other people about Benedict, not by Benedict himself. It is published by an organization that does not pay him. Many of the places in which it is cited list other sources to back it up. You may have had a point several months ago about over-reliance on the CV. But that point is no longer valid. The article is now filled with secondary sources.RefHistory (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with your changes with the Roelker prize. I only wish you had acted constructively by changing the article title rather than destructively by simply deleting it and moving on. I only reinserted the material once the correct article was added. Seriously -- you were absolutely correct to point out the problem. But why not fix the problem, instead of merely deleting it? It was an easy fix and you had all the correct information right in front of you from the SCSC website. I have only removed citation tags when information has been updated. And now that there is a 25 to 5 ratio, I believe that it may be time to delete the tag at the top of the article. RefHistory (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny how I had fixed the problem, not removing anything about the Roelker Prize, only to be reverted by, who thereby removed the "verification failed" tag from the place where the reference was misused. Any other untrue accusations of me not being helpful enough? Huon (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I added the appropriate article. You could have done the same. Instead, you combined a ton of changes (many of which had no foundation whatsoever, in a single edit. Of course I am going to revert that. And guess what, I deleted the Roelker Prize reference and added the correct article. That is called being collaborative. RefHistory (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledge that you are unwilling to retract incorrect accusations about my conduct while making further incorrect assertions. That is not being collaborative. Huon (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The More Recent Teaching Discussion[edit]

I have again removed [1] the "teaching" section as inappropriate tone and inappropriately sourced.

  • " travel to Geneva every summer from institutions across Europe and North America to participate " is completely promotional hype.
  • it is sourced to an intra-deparpmental newsletter, not a publication with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.
  • the people being claimed as "influences" are all non notable individuals and the only sources supporting the influence are the non notable people themselves, no third parties. WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, I fully agree with The Red Pen of Doom's reasoning regarding the inappropriate tone, the unreliability of the sources and the undue weight given Benedict's influences. Huon (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. These are University press books. It is not an intradepartmental newsletter. It is distributed all over the world and written by someone with a PhD. You have no right to blank this section. I will revert unless you can prove that these sources are illegitimate.RefHistory (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:ONUS the onus is on the person wishing to add content to establish that the sources are appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not wishing to add content. That content has been there for years. You are wishing to delete an entire section. No tagging . . .o suggestions . . .just wholesale erasure. No seeking consensus (you deleted it before anyone had a chance to comment). This is the definition of disruptive editing. So let's review the sources:
  • Article published in the Desert Harvest. This is not an "interdepartmental" newsletter. For one thing, the DLMRS is not a "department." It is an entire division. It has been in publication for over 20 years. It is distributed to scholars all over Europe and North America. You have not named a single inaccuracy in this source.
  • UNIGE website, listing Benedict as a teacher. UNIGE was founded in 1559. You have not named a single inaccuracy in this source.
  • Stanford University website, listing Benedict as a teacher. Benedict has never worked for Stanford, which is considered one of the best Universities in the world.
  • Reed University website. Benedict has never worked for Reed. You have not named a single inaccuracy in this source.
  • Toronto University Press History Book that won the 1996 John Nicholas Brown Prize of the Medieval Academy of America. You have not named a single inaccuracy in this source.
  • Harvard University Press History Book, that received three significant academic prizes -- the 2007 Phi Alpha Theta Best First Book Award, the 2007 John Gilmary Shea Prize, American Catholic Historical Association, and Honorable Mention, 2007 Association of American Publishers PSP Award, World History and Biography/Autobiography Category. This is a reliable source. You have not named a single inaccuracy in this source.
These are all reliable sources. None of them mention his CV. You may not blank an entire section that has existed for three years that is this well sourced. Who are you to decide if Michael Breen is notable? Besides, the section doesn't say Breen is notable. It just says he was Benedict's student. There are no evaluative claims in this section. BTW, Breen is a tenured prof and was recently a Professeur Invité at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. That is pretty impressive. RefHistory (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
These are primary sources being used in a promotional nature. Tarc (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how they are promotional? There isn't a single inaccuracy. There isn't a single adjective in this entire section. Try tagging. RefHistory (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

So I am seeing this term "puffery" being thrown around. This section does not contain a single adjective. No one has alleged a specific inaccuracy. So can someone please explain the precise basis for this claim?RefHistory (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Graduate students, doctoral candidates, and professors travel to Geneva every summer from institutions across Europe and North America... A pilgrimage? Just to see Dr. Benedict. wp:puffery. Michael Breen with a c.v. as a ref? No Wiki page? Not notable. Not RS. Jim1138 (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The word pilgrimmage isn't used. Can you please show how any of this is inaccurate? The article plainly supports it.RefHistory (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If no one can cite a single inaccuracy or problem with the language, then the material will be restored.RefHistory (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
We have cited multiple issues which preclude utilizing the content. You have provided no actual response to the issues to make the case for why it is appropriate under Wikipedia content policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. This is an issue of both relevance (A professor has PhD students? Why is that worthy of mention?) and of tone, in addition to the lack of third-party sources (that's a given for practically the entire article). RefHistory has resisted every attempt to make the tone more encyclopedic even if no content was changed. "Try tagging" sounds like a bad joke given that his usual response to tags has been a blanket reverting. Huon (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
What is the issue with this section? The fact that he trained prize winning scholars seems relevant. Is your issue with the language that the cours d'été attracts an international audience? If so, perhaps you can suggest alternative language. But the fact is that people do travel from all over the world to participate in these seminars. Regardless, why delete the bit about him training these prize winning scholars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:1C45:89DF:1AEB:A149 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Y'all. Former Phil student here. I changed the language and added some sources to prove relevance. A scholar's doctoral students are his legacy. And Phil Benedict has trained some really good ones. I trust the improved language and added sources should satisfy concerns raised here by others. (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually no, the new references do not satisfy the concerns. In fact, they don't seem to mention Benedict at all. If Benedict is such a renowned teacher, find a third-party source (ie not his student) that says so. Huon (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't claim he was a renowned teacher. Claimed he taught students who have gone on to do great things, like winning major book prizes. I think this claim is very sufficiently sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This is original synthesis, and Wikipedia is not the place for it. Sources that don't mention Benedict have no place in an article about Benedict. Content should be based on reliable secondary sources; this section wasn't. It also contained what look like factual errors, such as the claim that Benedict "has led the Institut d'histoire de la Réformation's intensive graduate seminars". If I read the Stanford conference announcement correctly, Benedict co-led (if you can call it that) some of them and personally had nothing to do with others. But again, such a conference announcement is not a reliable source subject to editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No synthesis there. The book's authors claim the work started as dissertations under his supervision. The prize committees awarded these books major prizes. I am all in favor of deleting the seminar announcement (I didn't put it in there in the first place). I don't think he is a great teacher. But the fact is he taught these students who have gone on to do great things, and he led these seminars (they are not conferences). This information is part of his legacy and does not imply any judgment as to the quality of his teaching. Again, I don't think he is a great teacher (but that is just my opinion). I do think, however, that his teaching deserves to be mentioned. (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR is only part of the issue. WP:UNDUE comes into play as well. the fact that only non notable people have been identified and only by themselves not by third parties means that the content is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The book prizes make them notable. They are a part of Phil Benedict's career. They are part of his academic biography. They have been distinguished by four separate prize committees, Harvard University Press, and University of Toronto Press. That makes them notable historians. These prize winning books started as dissertations that Phil supervised. (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Then find a source that makes the connection between Benedict's career and the book prizes, other than his own students. Huon (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The books themselves make that claim. They are notable scholars whose notoriety is confirmed by major external prizes. Those books have been vetted by two different elite University presses, four independent prize committees, as well as over 50 professional scholars who reviewed them. Not one of them contradicts this information. (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this as an acknowledgement that the only persons writing about how Benedict's students went on to win awards are Benedict's students themselves. We've been over this again and again; there simply is no independent coverage of Benedict's teaching career. Huon (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone else writing about Benedict in Harvard University press history books that has been vetted by 4 prize committees and over 50 reviewers is a valid secondary source. These claims are objective. They are not debated by anyone. They do not claim any positive or negative evaluations of his teaching. They just say he taught these people, and that they went on to win prizes. There is nothing debatable about this. (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you seriously claim those four prize committees and over 50 reviewers have reviewed the author biographies instead of the content of those books? Has any one of those 50 reviews commented on how the book shows the hallmarks of the Benedict school? Two of the "teaching" section's references don't mention Benedict, the others are written by his students who clearly are primary sources on being taught by Benedict. See WP:SYN on why we shouldn't combine sources that say the books won prizes with sources that say they grew out of Benedict-supervised dissertations to imply that Benedict's supervision leads to prize-winning books. Huon (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Since we seem unable to reach a consensus on our own I have started dispute resolution at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Philip Benedict#"teaching" section. Huon (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

See, this is where you get confused. I never said that there were "hallmarks" of the Benedict school. I never said he was a good teacher or a bad teacher. I just said that he taught these people. That is an indisputable fact. And yes, editorial and prize committees absolutely read the entire book, including sections in which the author explains how the book came into existence. (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

But you dont seem to get that merely teaching someone is irrelevant and non encyclopedic if his impact as a teacher on the teachee is not noted by any third parties. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion WP:COATRACK -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
and please sign into your account. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Training prize winning scholars is part of one's legacy. It is not irrelevant. If it were irrelevant, people wouldn't continue to reinsert it. Regardless, I have changed the language to comply with Wikipedia's source policy. This should satisfy your concerns. Also, I don't have a Wiki account. I didn't know I needed one. But calling another editor a dog is very rude. You should apologize. (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"If it were irrelevant, people wouldn't continue to reinsert it." that is pure fallacy. You apparently havent seen the type of crap people try to cram into articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't crap. Stop calling names. That was wrong and you owe an apology. (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is clearly a question here as to whether these University Press history books qualify as primary sources. I understand both perspectives. But the question is moot as Wikipedia absolutely allows for the use of primary sources. These prize winning scholars are fully qualified to say who their thesis supervisor was. The prize committees and Donlan article are verified secondary sources. There is nothing evaluative or controversial in this section. It makes no unfounded assertions or judgments about his teaching. (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That is not the question at all. The question is of appropriate relevance and reflecting third party views of the subject of this article. That his students gave a standard shout out to their teacher is irrelevant when no third parties have commented upon the "illumination" the subject of this article had on the productions of those works. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The authors of those books credit Benedict. That is what the language states. The word illumination isn't mentioned. The language makes clear that it is the students who credited the teacher. This is perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy. (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive. "Training prize winning scholars is part of one's legacy." - that's also original synthesis since no source makes that connection. Can we at least agree that sources that do not mention Benedict cannot contribute to an article about Benedict? That seems ridiculously obvious, but I would like some explicit agreement here. Huon (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree. A source that gives praises books whose authors acknowledge Benedict as playing a supervisory role part in their creation is relevant. This section is very simple and well sourced. Three short sentences that make no evaluative or judgmental claims. Six sources -- one article, two university press books, one university website, and two links to a combined total of four book prizes. This is very well sourced for three short sentences. (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

you are leaping and making connections and conclusions that are not actually made in the sources provided, merely your personal interpretation -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. There isn't one personal interpretation in this section. I dare you to try to name one. (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The books explicitly state that they started as dissertations which Benedict supervised. That isn't the Wiki editor, that is the book authors. The prize committees state that these books won prizes. Again, that isn't the Wiki editor. It is the prize committees. There is no personal interpretation present in the section's language. In fact, there is no evaluation whatsoever in this section -- either good or bad. It doesn't say if he is a good or bad teacher or supervisor. It is very dry. It just says that he supervised these works, which went on to win prizes. It is just plain fact backed up by verifiable sources. (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, cannot you get it that you are taking A from one source, B from another source and coming up with C which is not explicitly in ANY source - a clear violation of WP:OR subsection WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That isn't what is happening here. "I" am not getting C. I am not asserting anything. The authors assert he supervised the projects. The book prize committees assert the projects won prizes. Those aren't my opinions. And that isn't synthesis. Again, please show me a single assertion that is not backed up a source. It would be synthesis if an editor said "thanks to Phil Benedict's supervision, the project won a bunch of prizes . . . ." But no one is stating that. Everything stated is dry, factual, and extremely well sourced. (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are making the analysis not specifically made by the sources otherwise you would be able to point to where the source makes the claims that "we gave these prizes because of the influence that Benedict had on these students" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Where did I say it was "because" of his influence? No one has asserted that. You are just making that up. (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If it is not" because of Benedict's influence " then why in the world is there any reason we should mention them in the encyclopedia article about Benedict?????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Because the authors have explicitly credited him with supervision. Whether he was a good or bad teacher is a matter of personal opinion and doesn't belong here. But the fact that the dissertations he supervised became books that won prizes is not a matter of opinion. (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, that is not how Wikipedia works. You MUST provide a citation that explicitly makes the claims and analysis that you wish to include in the encyclopedia article without combining content from multiple sources to state or imply what is not explicitly in one of the sources. WP:SYN . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No. The evidence is there. He supervised those theses and the authors credit him with that. No one disputes that. Those works went on to win major prizes. No one disputes that either. Both have very strong sourcing. For whatever reason, you object to these two sentences being places next to each other. But that is not synthesis. (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
"No" what? The "evidence" is only there if you combine content from multiple sources to make a conclusion/implication that is not explicitly made in any of the individual sources - something that is strictly forbidden by policy. So "no" you don't have a source? or "no" you dont want to follow policy? or "no" the content shouldnt be in the encyclopedia? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how a source that does not mention Benedict can be relevant to this article, keeping WP:SYN in mind. Huon (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it is referring to a book that he supervised when it was in a dissertation stage. The author acknowledges his supervision. The source was listed one sentence earlier. You are confusing synthesis with the absence of plagiarism. Explaining that the books just mentioned in the previous sentence went on to win prizes isn't synthesis. (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

They didnt offer the prize "to the student AND to the illumination provided by his adviser P Benedict without whose brilliant insights this work would be a piece of shit." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This is just foul-mouthed nonsense. No one has used the word "illumination" except you. No one is calling others a "dog" or "piece of sh*t" except you. This is unprofessional and you need to apologize and cut it out. The authors explicitly give credit to Benedict for supervising the project. (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, other people have used "illumination", and edit warred for its inclusion [2] [3] - also see the section below where they attempt to justify it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I certainly haven't used it. And it certainly isn't in the article now. So stop putting words in my mouth and using foul language. (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I certainly never said that you had used it. And you certainly incorrectly stated that no one else had used it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Go read your comment (the one in which you used the "piece of shit" language). You were referring to what I wrote. No one ever used "illumination" in the teaching section. (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the dog, see On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. That was not meant to insult other editors, but claims of "I hold [rank that might be relevant to the discussion] so my opinion carries more weight" don't work on Wikipedia. Also, at a closer reading you'll see that TRPoD didn't call any editor, or even any editor's contribution, "a piece of shit". Rather, he pointed out that those sources "referring to a book that he supervised when it was in a dissertation stage" don't say they refer to a book that he supervised when it was in a dissertation stage. There are two possibillities here:
  1. There is no connection between Benedict and the book awards. Then the awards are irrelevant to Benedict and should be removed.
  2. There is a connection between Benedict and the book awards. Then we need a reliable source making that connection; we cannot combine one source that says Benedict supervised the dissertations and one that mentions the book awards to make that connection ourselves.
What you can't do is simultaneously argue that the book awards are relevant to Benedict and not present a source for that connection (well, you obviosly can, but you shouldn't since that's against Wikipedia's content policies). Huon (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

He clearly tried to say that I was implying the books were "pieces of sh*t" before Benedict got involved. That is ridiculous. And there is absolutely no room for that sort of profanity and putting words in others' mouths here. He owes an apology. Plain and simple. What he did was wrong. You can't claim others use over the top language when you say offensive and over the top things like this. Anyway . . . there is a third possibility in addition to the two that are listed: Benedict has a supervisory connection to the books, and the books won big prizes. That is precisely what the article states. Nothing more, nothing less. (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That is the third possibility, the one that Wikipedia doesn't allow. You need to provide one source that makes the claim/connections/implications or the Wikipedia article cannot include the claim/connections/implications. (have you read the link WP:SYN and are still this oblivious to its meaning or have you not even bothered to read the policy that has been linked for you so many times?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read the policy. This does not violate the policy, Phil Benedict supervised projects. This is undisputed, as it is verified by reliable sources. Those projects won prizes. This is also undisputed, and also verified by reliable sources. There are no implications or statements present in the language that violate WP policy. You putting words in my mouth and using unnecessary profanity, however, violates all sorts of moral codes and you owe an apology. Until then, you have lost any credibility to discuss what should or should not be stated on Wikipedia, as you have deliberately misstated the position of others and used completely unnecessary profanity. (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I desperately hope one of the many editors you (or someone else? With these ever-changing IPs it's hard to keep track of whom I'm talking to) notified actually bothers to reply; if you honestly don't see how combining "Phil Benedict supervised projects" and "Those projects won prizes" implies that Benedict had something to do with those prizes, in violation of SYN, after all this discussion, we'll simply have to wait for others to weigh in. I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who tries to waffle their way out of "Either there is a connection, or there isn't." Huon (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, Let's review:

  • Benedict had something to do with the projects -- Do you dispute this?
  • This "something" is clearly identified by the authors -- he supervised the projects when they were dissertations. (No one disputes this)
  • The projects won prizes (you don't dispute this either).
  • The authors explicitly credit Benedict for the supervision in the formative years of the project - You don't dispute this either.
  • The language of the article does not seek to pin down precisely what the prize committees were thinking. That isn't relevant. The prizes were awarded to books, not to authors or supervisors. But the fact that two projects he supervised went on to win four book prizes is indisputable. Two projects he supervised won four prizes. That is all the article states or implies.

Barack Obama didn't kill Osama bin Laden. He didn't pull the trigger or design the attack plan. But he supervised the intelligence agencies that did. His name is mentioned several times in the Wikipedia article about ObL's death. That is not synthesis. He was connected to the assassination as a supervisor. Phil Benedict was connected to these prize winning books as a supervisor. The precise nature of that connection is not going to get flushed out in a Wiki page, other than to say that the authors give him credit for his role in these projects, and that these projects went on to win prizes. It is the authors who explicitly give him credit. It is clear that this isn't your main concern. If it were, you wouldn't have tried to delete the whole section for an issue with one sentence. You are masking some other issue. Yes, my IP changes when I go to work. So what? The only thing that matters here is Wiki policy. And the fact is these books won four prizes. (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, lets review the policy. WP:SYN you cannot take content from source A and combine it with content from source B to make OR IMPLY point C which is NOT EXPLICITLY STATED in ONE SOURCE. It is not that hard. But if you cannot get that basic policy requirement, you should stay away from editing Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no implication. The sentence complies with WP. The statement is that the books won a prize. Benedict supervised the projects. That is all it says. No implication whatsoever.You have tried to delete this entire section b/c you can't understand a single sentence within that section properly! -- instead inventing ridiculous implications. Perhaps you should refrain from editing Wikipedia. (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is obviously an implication - otherwise why are we putting a prize that someone else won in the article about PB? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with TRPoD. And the Obama analogy perfectly illustrates the problem. I won't have any problem at all finding reliable sources that discuss in meticulous detail Obama's involvement in the supervision of that operation. Now it's your turn: Where are the sources that explicitly confirm that "Phil Benedict was connected to these prize winning books as a supervisor"? That one sentence captures the implication you're making here. The only link between Benedict's supervision and the prizes the books won is yours, not the references'. Sources do not say Benedict had anything to do with those prizes. The prizes are not linked to Benedict's supervision, nor to Benedict in general. Providing information on the prizes does not tell our readers anything about Benedict, except by unsourced implication of our own devising. If you absolutely insist that it's important for a full understanding of Benedict that some of his PhD students went on to publish their dissertations as books, we could arguably cite the books as primary sources (and yes, citing a book for that book's history makes it a primary source), though there would be WP:WEIGHT issues. Mentioning those prizes in this article, however, and thereby implying a connection between Benedict and those prizes, however vague we word that, is a violation of one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Huon (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Books win prizes. Lots of people work on university press history books. The authors certainly deserve primary credit. But there are countless editors, supervisors and assistants who also help. In this case, the sources cited in the previous sentence clearly prove he contributed to these books as a dissertation supervision. They are explicitly listed in the sentence before. I am not the one coming up with this -- it is Brockey and Taylor. Blame them if you wish. But they state that the projects originated under his supervision. The books won prizes. He contributed to the books. The authors themselves say so. There is no implication. Those two statements are straight facts. How do projects that he supervised that won awards not count as relevant? (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The prizes are irrelevant to Benedict because no reliable source whatsoever, not even a primary source like the books themselves, connects Benedict to those prizes. That connection is entirely yours. The implication is that Benedict's supervision and the prizes are related in some way. Huon (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution options[edit]

Are any/all of the IPs interested in participating in the Dispute Resolution option Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Philip_Benedict.23.22teaching.22_section? If not, then we can put an end to these pointless repetitions via a request for comment from the community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Your friend already put this on the dispute resolution notice board. Give it time. You clearly want to delete any mention of these book projects that he supervised. But perhaps you should give the system Huon chose time to work. You will notice that no one has jumped out on that yet. (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"No one has jumped out on that" is precisely what TRPoD wanted to change. A RfC would likely bring in uninvolved editors and thereby help form a consensus. I understand you're perfectly happy with waiting as long as the article has the wording you prefer and you can also keep the maintenance tags off the page. Huon (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

RefHistory jumped on it. (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

He's not an uninvolved editor, though. Regarding the claims that the issues expressed in the maintenance tags have not been raised on the talk page, compare for example here for both WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN, which is a section of WP:OR, here explicitly for both, and more recently here, and for WP:COATRACK here. What is this, "I reject your reality and substitute my own"? I'll also have to note that the IP editor was so eager to get the maintenance tags off the page that they also re-added a duplicate of the "teaching" section in the process. It's inappropriate to remove the maintenance tags that indicate the dispute before the dispute is resolved. Huon (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No one has made a case for any of those tags on talk. Make your case here first. (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC) (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC
I just pointed out multiple comments where TRPoD and I raised the issues pointed out by those maintenance tags. Do you want me to explicitly say that "since the 'teaching' section has issues of original research, undue weight and discussing topics not relevant to Benedict himself, issues which obviously currently cannot be resolved without engaging in an edit war, we should tag it so other editors become aware of the dispute surrounding those issues"? OK, done now. Please re-add the maintenance tags that have not been resolved, and while you're at it, remove the duplicate section you re-added (again). While by now I take little for granted, I assume we can at least agree that we don't need to have that content twice. Huon (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No one has mentioned or defended these claims on talk. Your issue has been synthesis. But no one took up your side on the Dispute Resolution. See below. (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, this section was opened to identify whether the IPs are interested in participating in the DRN discussion or not. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Philip_Benedict.23.22teaching.22_section If not, then we will simply move to a community Request for Comment that will be able to simply resolve the issue and let the stretched DNR team help with situations where the disputants are willing to utilize the process. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the lack of resources at DRN and the lack of interest in participating by the IPs, I will be withdrawing from the DRN in lieu of the community RFC which I have started below. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have given invitations to participate to the two registered accounts who have recently been participating in the discussion. Given the multiple and dynamic IPs, attempting to notify them individually seems unlikely to reach the intended targets, but anyone is welcome to try to contact them directly.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to participate. What is the link? These tags are disruptive and unnecessary. (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The content is now being addressed via the Request for Comment below on this page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The New Tags[edit]

No one has made an argument for these new tags yet. The discussion above has focussed on the claim by two editors that the last sentence of this section contains synthesis. No one has made a case for the issues of original research, undue weight and WP:COATRACK. This one sentence clearly cannot violate every single Wikipedia policy. But everytime Huon and TRPoD do not prevail on one issue, they simply invent another. You need to assert and defend your reasoning for these specific tags on Talk before simply asserting them. For instance:

  • How can your disagreement with a clause in a single sentence (which have until now been confined to the allegation of synthesis) now justify three disruptive tags for an entire section?
  • Please point out how a single clause in a sentence can lend undue weight? Again, this is a vert small part of a larger section.
  • How can a single clause in a single sentence comprise a coatrack?
  • How does the fact that these books won prizes (which is certainly proven by third party links) comprise "original research?"

Your actual claim is really one of synthesis -- not the things listed above. Having failed to persuade of your claim of synthesis in a dispute resolution, you are now inventing new reasons to vandalize this section. (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No, as described in the above sections, ad nauseum, there are multiple issues here . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
You have not defended any of these specific tags. Please respond to each of the issues outlined above. Otherwise, it is not legitimate. (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
For those who lace the ability to scroll up and read the content there (you really should invest in a better mouse or touch screen:
            • It is original research - making or implying a claim that is not in the actual sources - that PB 's work or influence had something to do with the books getting awards.
                                • It doesn't state anything that qualifies as original research. Both claims -- he supervised those projects and those projects won awards are in the citations. Your claim is synthesis, not OR. (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Again you should invest in a scroll bar because WP:SYN is a subsection of WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
So why not tag that last clause? Why disrupt the rest of the section? (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

            • It is undue weight - if PB had any impact on the books getting awards, it is so tiny an impact on PB's actual body of influence (given the fact that zero of the reliable sources mention it) that calling it out in its own section in our article gives it too much weight
                                • Several reliable sources mention this. They are cited in the previous section. Again, this is just one clause in one sentence. Tagging the entire paragraph with undue weight for such a small section is unjustified. It would be one thing if this took up any significant amount of space. But it doesn't. (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
No reliable sources mention PB in relation to the awards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Very reliable sources (the authors themselves) mention that he supervised these projects. These projects won awards. (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
            • It is a coatrack, talking about something other than the subject of the article - given that his only impact on the books was perhaps an influence at best - and the awards are for the books, not for the "influence" , talking about awards that he didnt win from award committees that do not mention PB's impact as to why the awards are being given, is talking about something other than the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
                                • That isn't true. The authors say he supervised these projects. It isn't some broad question influence -- it is supervision. (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The award is not for "EXCELLENCE IN ILLUMINATION BY A SUPERVISOR OF THE PROJECT: PB!" . The awards say nothing about PB, hence are coatracking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The text does not mention excellence or illumination. That is all in your head. It just mentions he supervised these projects, which no one disputes. Those projects won awards. (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


Regarding this. "Illuminated" is clearly not acceptable, it's a loaded term, "stated" is simply and neutral. It also does not imply verbal communication. — Strongjam (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Illuminated just means "shed light on." Feel free to replace it with this. But this was an academic argument. It wasn't a statement.2602:306:341B:F2E0:180F:35E6:69D2:C4C2 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

So he was out there pointing spotlights at books? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment - Teaching section[edit]

(non-admin closure) There is clear consensus that the mention of a book / student is not appropriate unless there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion. Primary sources are not sufficient. GregJackP Boomer! 04:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two aspects have been under contention (see Talk:Philip_Benedict#The Older Teaching Discussion (closed since March 1, 2015) and (Talk:Philip_Benedict#The_More_Recent_Teaching_Discussion):

  • Aspect 1) Does a student mentioning/giving thanks to Philip Benedict in the acknowledgment or similar page of the book rise to the level of importance that the student/book should be covered in this article (if third parties have not covered the student's acknowledgment of/relationship to Benedict)?
    • (if "yes" !vote 1) include mention of book with rationale; if "no" !vote 1) do not include mention of book with rationale)
  • Aspect 2) (If "yes" to the first aspect) Should an award that a student won for a book (which included a thank you to Benedict) be mentioned in this article if there is no source that discusses the award in relationship to Benedict ?
    • (if "yes" !vote 2) include mention of award with rationale; if "no" !vote 2) do not include information about award with rationale.)

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


  • 1) do not include mention of book/student. without a third party coverage to demonstrate the significance. the leveraging of primary sources to claim importance is WP:UNDUE, particularly if neither the book nor the student meets the notability standards. 2) do not include information about award unless there is within a single third party source a mention of the award AND Benedict's role in the procuring of the award. Without a third party source explicitly making the connection between the award and Benedict we would be committing WP:OR and WP:COATRACKing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 1) Do not include promotional content without reliable third-party sources, which Benedict's own students clearly are not. 2) Do not include awards unless reliable third-party sources connect the awards to Benedict; see WP:SYN. Huon (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • do not include mention of book, and do not include information about award - The book and the award are the student's achievements, not Benedict's. Unless a third-party RS somehow "credits" Benedict with the students work, neither of these things should be included. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not include -- No third party coverage. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include -- The third party is provided by the major book awards. The fact that Benedict supervised is confirmed by the authors themselves. (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not include trivial coverage. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

threaded discussion[edit]

Once again, the authors are not third parties on their own supervisor. No source whatsoever connects the supervision to the book awards. Huon (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 29 June 2015[edit]

Please remove "agnostic" from the religion parameter in the infobox per the clear consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. Or delete the parameter if you think "Nonpracticing Judaism" is not a religion (I could go either way on that one). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'd consider "nonpracticing Judaism" an ethnicity, not a religion. No objection to the request above, but I'd probably be considered involved in anything regarding this article and would thus prefer another admin to do the deed. Huon (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I just finished removing the religion parameter from over 600 pages. What I would have done if this page wasn't protected is delete the "religion =" line entirely to see if anyone reverted, then I would have tried just removing the "agnostic" to see if they reverted that change, then the usual WP:BRD talk page discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
support the removal of the parameter altogether his agnosticism is not in any way relevant to his notability. His Jewish heritage and agnosticism might be worth a mention in the body about his personal life. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • minus Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • He mentions it as his religious background -- not his ethnic background. He thought it was significant considering the fact that many who write about the history Calvinism almost always come from either a Calvinist or some other flavor of Christian background. (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 June 2015 a[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I request that the tags be removed from the teaching section on the ||Philip Benedict|| page. The tags do not correspond to the actual issue of the editors who are adding it -- which is in fact a claim of synthesis, not OR, Coatrack, or Undue Emphasis. They have a problem with a single sentence. They should address that on talk and perhaps add a sentence tag, not three vandalizing tags for the entire section. (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done:As described above in multiple sections above, the tags do represent issues that are being discussed on the talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Summer courses[edit]

The claim that Benedict led the summer courses is not supported by the given reference, which only says that Benedict led the Institut d'histoire de la Reformation itself. Stanford indicates that while Benedict participated in some of the summer courses as faculty, there were others at the same time he wasn't involved in. To claim that Benedict led them thus seems a misrepresentation. If no reference can be found that confirms Benedict led those summer courses, we should remove that claim. Huon (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It used to read "Together with his colleagues . . . " But you changed it so many times that it ended up this way. I reinserted the language to make it more accurate.

Promotional Material?[edit]

Huon -- you need to show how the material that currently exists in the Graduate Supervision section is promotional. You can't just keep deleting it without justification. Perhaps you could crowd surf the question.RefHistory (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not it's promotional - consensus is against including it. Period. Edit warring to put it back in is not going to accomplish anything. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "crowd surfing the question", but the RfC above determined that the content was unsuitable for the article as long as we couldn't provide third-party sources, and that Benedict's students' books are not third-party sources on Benedict's students. Regarding "promotional", while the version you reverted to is rather toned down compared to what we had before, it still protrayed Benedict as kind of the target of a pilgrimage. The "intensive" summer courses "attract a wide range of participants to Geneva from institutions across Europe and North America"? What information does that add, compared to calling them "international graduate seminars"? If the answer is, "nothing", then this is just bloviating for the purpose of sounding more impressive. That wording also isn't supported by the reference. Huon (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)