This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Much of this article is taken from press releases. Furthermore, Nick Turse and user Dlv999, who made significant contributions to this article, are the same person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dlv999/Nick_Turse
It would be good to have some balance in this article. 76.14.66.186 ( talk) 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Why was the following removed? It is cited. It's certainly an unusual take on the Columbine Massacre. Chisme ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
In the winter 2000 issue of the academic journal 49th parallel, Nicholas Turse wrote of the Columbine High School massacre: " Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold may be the Mark Rudd and Abbie Hoffman figures of today." Turse wrote:
Who would not concede that terrorizing the American machine, at the very site where it exerts its most powerful influence, is a truly revolutionary task? To be inarticulate about your goals, even to not understand them, does not negate their existence. Approve or disapprove of their methods, vilify them as miscreants, but don’t dare disregard these modern radicals as anything less than the latest incarnation of disaffected insurgents waging the ongoing American revolution. [1]
Here in October this is being discussed again. The consensus was reached last March. Please respect earlier editors' opinions. 76.14.66.186 ( talk) 00:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This should remain. It was debated and resolved. Chisme ( talk) 15:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
References
Readerfix ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
76.31.97.54 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Users Readerfix and 76.31.97.54, who are one and the same person, have cluttered this article with extraneous material touting the subject. Seeing as much of this material is taken from the subject's website, I think there is a conflict of interest here. If these edits continue, I would like to take this to [Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard] Chisme ( talk) 18:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost none of this material is from the author's website which actually appears to be long out of date. Only a few of the author's writings are listed on this page, not "every article" or "review of every book." Why not delete the whole thing if you don't want detail? Readerfix ( talk) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Tomdispatch is mainstream media. Articles are republished in mainstream outlets all the time (ex. http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=tomdispatch&target=adv_all&date=&sortby=display_time+descending) It's affiliated with The Nation magazine and publishes only well-known, respected authors. Readerfix ( talk) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
As this is a biographical article, the material under section heading Investigations needs to be in chronological order. Numerous entries don't indicate this at all, perhaps only indicated in the citations? -- Deborahjay ( talk) 19:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Size of articles for well-known journalists:
Size of article for journalist who runs a blog no one has ever heard of:
I've tried adjusting the excessive detail and fluff accordingly, but the single-purpose COI account keeps adding material. Nick Turse needs to be more terse. 70.134.227.120 ( talk) 17:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. |
The only thing what it is, Nick Turse's bio is not a space for boosting somebody's ego as it happens, right here, right now. I think that Nick is laughing reading all this crap on his talk page, and currently writes an entry for his blog where he depicts us, the so-called wikipedia editors, as mumbling fools (Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 5). To stop him from doing that everybody should better start thinking and acting constructively as adults are supposed to be doing! What would I most humbly suggest:
With warmest regards, -- Murus ( talk) 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
In a nutshell, a bio of a living person is not an exercise in promotion or dissing. As I write, WP lawyers are busy trying to placate a bunch of irritated people and their lawyers who are suing WP in a court of law for defamation, you, people, should really start reading The Signpost. So, 'DO NO HARM' should be our guiding star! All questionable material that can be interpreted as an intention to degrade somebody should be mercifully cut out. About dissing, scientists found out recently that poop-throwing by chimps can be a sign of intelligence [2], but I am not sure if this is also applicable to Wikipedia editors. About promotion, this is more tricky, since any information can be called promotional, so, please, kindly prove your claim here, on a talk page. And, last but not least, thank you, buddy Chisme, for fixing those references, and now that luggage sticker can be taken away. If you will find more stuff of that nature in the future, please, go head and fix it right away! Thank you! Regards to all, -- Murus ( talk) 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
No one has touched this article in 10 years. It appears that objections have been met. I am therefore removing the decade-old tag. Skywriter ( talk) 05:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Much of this article is taken from press releases. Furthermore, Nick Turse and user Dlv999, who made significant contributions to this article, are the same person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dlv999/Nick_Turse
It would be good to have some balance in this article. 76.14.66.186 ( talk) 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Why was the following removed? It is cited. It's certainly an unusual take on the Columbine Massacre. Chisme ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
In the winter 2000 issue of the academic journal 49th parallel, Nicholas Turse wrote of the Columbine High School massacre: " Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold may be the Mark Rudd and Abbie Hoffman figures of today." Turse wrote:
Who would not concede that terrorizing the American machine, at the very site where it exerts its most powerful influence, is a truly revolutionary task? To be inarticulate about your goals, even to not understand them, does not negate their existence. Approve or disapprove of their methods, vilify them as miscreants, but don’t dare disregard these modern radicals as anything less than the latest incarnation of disaffected insurgents waging the ongoing American revolution. [1]
Here in October this is being discussed again. The consensus was reached last March. Please respect earlier editors' opinions. 76.14.66.186 ( talk) 00:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This should remain. It was debated and resolved. Chisme ( talk) 15:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
References
Readerfix ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
76.31.97.54 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Users Readerfix and 76.31.97.54, who are one and the same person, have cluttered this article with extraneous material touting the subject. Seeing as much of this material is taken from the subject's website, I think there is a conflict of interest here. If these edits continue, I would like to take this to [Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard] Chisme ( talk) 18:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost none of this material is from the author's website which actually appears to be long out of date. Only a few of the author's writings are listed on this page, not "every article" or "review of every book." Why not delete the whole thing if you don't want detail? Readerfix ( talk) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Tomdispatch is mainstream media. Articles are republished in mainstream outlets all the time (ex. http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=tomdispatch&target=adv_all&date=&sortby=display_time+descending) It's affiliated with The Nation magazine and publishes only well-known, respected authors. Readerfix ( talk) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
As this is a biographical article, the material under section heading Investigations needs to be in chronological order. Numerous entries don't indicate this at all, perhaps only indicated in the citations? -- Deborahjay ( talk) 19:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Size of articles for well-known journalists:
Size of article for journalist who runs a blog no one has ever heard of:
I've tried adjusting the excessive detail and fluff accordingly, but the single-purpose COI account keeps adding material. Nick Turse needs to be more terse. 70.134.227.120 ( talk) 17:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. |
The only thing what it is, Nick Turse's bio is not a space for boosting somebody's ego as it happens, right here, right now. I think that Nick is laughing reading all this crap on his talk page, and currently writes an entry for his blog where he depicts us, the so-called wikipedia editors, as mumbling fools (Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 5). To stop him from doing that everybody should better start thinking and acting constructively as adults are supposed to be doing! What would I most humbly suggest:
With warmest regards, -- Murus ( talk) 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
In a nutshell, a bio of a living person is not an exercise in promotion or dissing. As I write, WP lawyers are busy trying to placate a bunch of irritated people and their lawyers who are suing WP in a court of law for defamation, you, people, should really start reading The Signpost. So, 'DO NO HARM' should be our guiding star! All questionable material that can be interpreted as an intention to degrade somebody should be mercifully cut out. About dissing, scientists found out recently that poop-throwing by chimps can be a sign of intelligence [2], but I am not sure if this is also applicable to Wikipedia editors. About promotion, this is more tricky, since any information can be called promotional, so, please, kindly prove your claim here, on a talk page. And, last but not least, thank you, buddy Chisme, for fixing those references, and now that luggage sticker can be taken away. If you will find more stuff of that nature in the future, please, go head and fix it right away! Thank you! Regards to all, -- Murus ( talk) 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
No one has touched this article in 10 years. It appears that objections have been met. I am therefore removing the decade-old tag. Skywriter ( talk) 05:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)