![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Well . . . I would not in fact claim to be eminent. I do have 20 plus articles published in scholarly outlets -- including some in top political science journals, including five in the AJPS, and two in the Journal of Politics. Then there are a bunch of others in decent outlets. But this just makes me a journeyman political scientist, not "eminent."
My only real claim to fame is my JFK assassination web site. The current article (thanks to whoever did it) has three cites on that. Let me add one more:
“it appears to me that McAdams’s site is the premier JFK assassination Web site, clearly superior in depth and scholarship to that of his peers.” (Vince Bugliosi, in Reclaiming History. [on supplemental CD])
Note that I also have a book on the assassination coming out.
And I also moderate Usenet group alt.assassination.jfk.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/news.htm
So while I don't claim to be "eminent" as an academic, I would claim to be at least somewhat important in the Internet discussion of JFK assassination issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 ( talk • contribs)
Somebody messed with the entry, inserting a link to a page claiming that Lee Oswald is in the doorway of the Depository at the time Kennedy was shot. All that has to do with me is that I have a page claiming he's not.
Somebody also inserted a section about my politics. It has a bunch of irrelevant stuff, one citation that does not check out, and another that's irrelevant. (John McAdams) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.198.73 ( talk) 05:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In the first place, the citation to the claim that I'm an outspoken conservative doesn't say that. Secondly, the citation to my blog is one article about my blog, on a somewhat arcane issue, when it should be simply a link to my blog, which people can look at and draw their own conclusions. (John McAdams) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.198.73 ( talk) 06:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, the citation to an article claiming it was Oswald in the doorway simply wants to argue about one rather arcane issue about the assassination. It implies that I work for the CIA, which in fact is libel (assuming anybody took it seriously). Look at the link, and you'll see it's to a kook site. (John McAdams) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.198.73 ( talk) 06:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to get the listings up to date up above regarding the conflicts of interest for McAdams editing here, and it appears an IP related to him tried to edit the page directly in the past few days.
Anyone know if it's possible to get that list in a single box rather than requiring a box for each user? The template used seems to only accept one entry. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 13:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Per this diff [1] I am adding user Levazquez76 to the list of connected contributors. They appear to be referencing a personal communication with McAdams in their edit summary, making a claim that cannot be substantiated by sources and that directly contradicts the letter from Marquette, a source in this article. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please do not continue edit warring any further. You appear to be attempting to make edits based on a personal blog, which is not allowed per wikipedia policy on self-published sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 19:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
{request edit} remove "despite making written agreements with the University that he would not do so after the 2nd instance."
Career>3rd paragraph>3rd sentence
There is no evidence in either source 11 or 12 to back up the statement regarding a written agreement.
Source 12 (page 14) states McAdams "acknowledged" posting student names was a matter of concern. Acknowledging is not the same thing as making a written agreement.
Levazquez76 ( talk) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
"deliberately publishing students' names and information to target them for harassment"
Isn't this inflammatory, without a source that states this specifically? I see nothing in either source. Using the words "deliberately" and "target" seem reckless. Levazquez76 ( talk) 05:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence: "The announcement triggered a barrage of hateful and threatening messages from McAdams's supporters.[16]" (I noticed it because it has been the subject of edit warring over the inclusion of "McAdams supporters".} The problem I have with the sentence is that it does not make clear who the messages were directed toward. I assumed they were directed toward the university administration, until I checked the source. It turns out they were actually directed toward one of the students that he had publicly identified on his website. [2] I think that's important and should be made clear. Particularly because he is accused of "deliberately publishing students' names and information to target them for harassment". -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify - I have not been "edit warring" here. "William Gosset" ( contribs) appears to be yet another throwaway IP sockpuppet in the mix. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 00:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Well . . . I would not in fact claim to be eminent. I do have 20 plus articles published in scholarly outlets -- including some in top political science journals, including five in the AJPS, and two in the Journal of Politics. Then there are a bunch of others in decent outlets. But this just makes me a journeyman political scientist, not "eminent."
My only real claim to fame is my JFK assassination web site. The current article (thanks to whoever did it) has three cites on that. Let me add one more:
“it appears to me that McAdams’s site is the premier JFK assassination Web site, clearly superior in depth and scholarship to that of his peers.” (Vince Bugliosi, in Reclaiming History. [on supplemental CD])
Note that I also have a book on the assassination coming out.
And I also moderate Usenet group alt.assassination.jfk.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/news.htm
So while I don't claim to be "eminent" as an academic, I would claim to be at least somewhat important in the Internet discussion of JFK assassination issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 ( talk • contribs)
Somebody messed with the entry, inserting a link to a page claiming that Lee Oswald is in the doorway of the Depository at the time Kennedy was shot. All that has to do with me is that I have a page claiming he's not.
Somebody also inserted a section about my politics. It has a bunch of irrelevant stuff, one citation that does not check out, and another that's irrelevant. (John McAdams) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.198.73 ( talk) 05:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In the first place, the citation to the claim that I'm an outspoken conservative doesn't say that. Secondly, the citation to my blog is one article about my blog, on a somewhat arcane issue, when it should be simply a link to my blog, which people can look at and draw their own conclusions. (John McAdams) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.198.73 ( talk) 06:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, the citation to an article claiming it was Oswald in the doorway simply wants to argue about one rather arcane issue about the assassination. It implies that I work for the CIA, which in fact is libel (assuming anybody took it seriously). Look at the link, and you'll see it's to a kook site. (John McAdams) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.198.73 ( talk) 06:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to get the listings up to date up above regarding the conflicts of interest for McAdams editing here, and it appears an IP related to him tried to edit the page directly in the past few days.
Anyone know if it's possible to get that list in a single box rather than requiring a box for each user? The template used seems to only accept one entry. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 13:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Per this diff [1] I am adding user Levazquez76 to the list of connected contributors. They appear to be referencing a personal communication with McAdams in their edit summary, making a claim that cannot be substantiated by sources and that directly contradicts the letter from Marquette, a source in this article. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please do not continue edit warring any further. You appear to be attempting to make edits based on a personal blog, which is not allowed per wikipedia policy on self-published sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 19:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
{request edit} remove "despite making written agreements with the University that he would not do so after the 2nd instance."
Career>3rd paragraph>3rd sentence
There is no evidence in either source 11 or 12 to back up the statement regarding a written agreement.
Source 12 (page 14) states McAdams "acknowledged" posting student names was a matter of concern. Acknowledging is not the same thing as making a written agreement.
Levazquez76 ( talk) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
"deliberately publishing students' names and information to target them for harassment"
Isn't this inflammatory, without a source that states this specifically? I see nothing in either source. Using the words "deliberately" and "target" seem reckless. Levazquez76 ( talk) 05:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence: "The announcement triggered a barrage of hateful and threatening messages from McAdams's supporters.[16]" (I noticed it because it has been the subject of edit warring over the inclusion of "McAdams supporters".} The problem I have with the sentence is that it does not make clear who the messages were directed toward. I assumed they were directed toward the university administration, until I checked the source. It turns out they were actually directed toward one of the students that he had publicly identified on his website. [2] I think that's important and should be made clear. Particularly because he is accused of "deliberately publishing students' names and information to target them for harassment". -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify - I have not been "edit warring" here. "William Gosset" ( contribs) appears to be yet another throwaway IP sockpuppet in the mix. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 00:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)