This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I also reviewed past changes and edits and believe I disagree with a change made by a prior editor. Given my inexperience, I don't feel comfortable making any changes without presenting it here for discussion. Also, in recognizing my inexperience, I'm open to changing my mind if I can gain a better understanding of the removal. The "Military and Government" career subsection of this article was removed in a revision and the contents merged with the general career information.
I would like to make the argument from my background as a retired academic/historian that this subsection was both useful and necessary for clarity for readers and researchers. The subject of this article has had three very distinct (unusually so; thus warranting particular care to explain within the article) phases in their career: News and PR as a private citizen (broadcast and print journalist, communications consultant); high-profile public servant for projects with clear notability/likely historical import due for the military and government; and later-in-life creative (primarily film/television). In each of these areas, the subject has done work of notability, as described in the existing article. My concern with the decision to remove the military/government section and combine its contents with the news media and consultant work, is that given the particular notability of the government projects (performed for cabinet secretaries, the Congress of the United States, and the President of the United States) this construction does not best serve Wikipedia users, as any user researching this subject would be unlikely to be looking for his holistic biography but would be looking him up/researching his specific work in one of these three phases of his public-facing life/career, and, to my lights, most likely looking up his government work in the Bush/Obama administrations (as it is the most historic and relevant).
Finally, as a practical matter, collapsing these sections removed the table of contents/finding aid with links to just those sections that are extremely useful for those looking for information. For this reason, I think clarity, navigability, and utility is best served by the sections broken out and organized as they were, but without having that page at my fingertips at this time, may understand that the information within those sections needed to be organized a different way. I'd like to think about this more myself here AND put it out here on the talk page to see if anyone has any thoughts or perspective I may not have thought about. As I said, there may be something I'm not familiar with, so I'd love to be educated as part of this discussion by more experienced editors. Thanks.
OldKentuckyFriend ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
1. Objectivity Self-Certification: I do not have a personal connection to the subject, but the work I've done helping to clear flags on my previous two articles (most recently the article for the film this subject directed) meant I'd already completed some common research, and was familiar with the subject. That level of familiarity, coupled with the requisite objectivity, made this an ideal choice for my next review/verification/validation project (something I'm looking to do more of on Wikipedia) and my background as a retired academic, semi-professional historian, and, briefly, freelance journalist (feature writing) give me the necessary tools to do a good job at it. I welcome any and all feedback from more experienced editors.
2. Steps taken:
NOTE: I am confident my neutrality review has addressed the core concerns, and that the time I allowed for discussion and feedback (prior to removing the flag) was sufficient. That said, I recognize additional improvements and refinements may be useful to make the article even better. I'll track this page for the next 90 days in case additional feedback or requests for information present.
OldKentuckyFriend ( talk) 19:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC) | UPDATED 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I also reviewed past changes and edits and believe I disagree with a change made by a prior editor. Given my inexperience, I don't feel comfortable making any changes without presenting it here for discussion. Also, in recognizing my inexperience, I'm open to changing my mind if I can gain a better understanding of the removal. The "Military and Government" career subsection of this article was removed in a revision and the contents merged with the general career information.
I would like to make the argument from my background as a retired academic/historian that this subsection was both useful and necessary for clarity for readers and researchers. The subject of this article has had three very distinct (unusually so; thus warranting particular care to explain within the article) phases in their career: News and PR as a private citizen (broadcast and print journalist, communications consultant); high-profile public servant for projects with clear notability/likely historical import due for the military and government; and later-in-life creative (primarily film/television). In each of these areas, the subject has done work of notability, as described in the existing article. My concern with the decision to remove the military/government section and combine its contents with the news media and consultant work, is that given the particular notability of the government projects (performed for cabinet secretaries, the Congress of the United States, and the President of the United States) this construction does not best serve Wikipedia users, as any user researching this subject would be unlikely to be looking for his holistic biography but would be looking him up/researching his specific work in one of these three phases of his public-facing life/career, and, to my lights, most likely looking up his government work in the Bush/Obama administrations (as it is the most historic and relevant).
Finally, as a practical matter, collapsing these sections removed the table of contents/finding aid with links to just those sections that are extremely useful for those looking for information. For this reason, I think clarity, navigability, and utility is best served by the sections broken out and organized as they were, but without having that page at my fingertips at this time, may understand that the information within those sections needed to be organized a different way. I'd like to think about this more myself here AND put it out here on the talk page to see if anyone has any thoughts or perspective I may not have thought about. As I said, there may be something I'm not familiar with, so I'd love to be educated as part of this discussion by more experienced editors. Thanks.
OldKentuckyFriend ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
1. Objectivity Self-Certification: I do not have a personal connection to the subject, but the work I've done helping to clear flags on my previous two articles (most recently the article for the film this subject directed) meant I'd already completed some common research, and was familiar with the subject. That level of familiarity, coupled with the requisite objectivity, made this an ideal choice for my next review/verification/validation project (something I'm looking to do more of on Wikipedia) and my background as a retired academic, semi-professional historian, and, briefly, freelance journalist (feature writing) give me the necessary tools to do a good job at it. I welcome any and all feedback from more experienced editors.
2. Steps taken:
NOTE: I am confident my neutrality review has addressed the core concerns, and that the time I allowed for discussion and feedback (prior to removing the flag) was sufficient. That said, I recognize additional improvements and refinements may be useful to make the article even better. I'll track this page for the next 90 days in case additional feedback or requests for information present.
OldKentuckyFriend ( talk) 19:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC) | UPDATED 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)