![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philip Benedict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 38.111.244.254 ( talk) 22:34, 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)
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 99.65.191.46 ( 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 ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 February 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).
212.189.167.134 (
talk)
09:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
What is your justification for removing the mention of his Roelker Prize? It is listed on the SCSC's website: http://www.sixteenthcentury.org/prizes/roelker/ 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?
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 99.53.220.239 ( talk) 20:56, 1 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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 ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
The article is still full of promotional, flowery language, particularly in parts not supported by the given sources. Problematic sources include:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 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)
I have again removed [1] the "teaching" section as inappropriate tone and inappropriately sourced.
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)
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)
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. 94.167.231.189 ( talk) 23:41, 13 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 94.165.152.208 ( talk) 09:07, 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. 128.90.33.239 ( talk) 20:59, 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. 128.90.90.125 ( talk) 22:40, 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. 94.163.231.134 ( talk) 23:33, 14 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. 5.87.161.220 ( talk) 22:20, 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.
94.161.20.219 (
talk)
05:28, 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. 94.161.20.219 ( talk) 06:02, 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. 128.90.95.55 ( talk) 19:21, 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. 5.86.130.73 ( talk) 22:26, 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. 5.86.130.73 ( talk) 22:48, 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)
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. 5.87.113.144 ( talk) 18:41, 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. 5.87.113.144 ( talk) 19:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, Let's review:
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. 94.163.50.178 ( talk) 05:18, 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. 94.163.189.180 ( talk) 11:01, 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? 94.167.71.117 ( talk) 06:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
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. 94.167.71.117 ( talk) 06:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
RefHistory jumped on it. 212.189.167.134 ( talk) 09:09, 23 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)
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. 108.245.120.149 ( talk) 16:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
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:
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. 212.189.167.134 ( talk) 09:41, 24 June 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)
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):
-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. 94.163.176.186 ( 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philip Benedict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 38.111.244.254 ( talk) 22:34, 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)
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 99.65.191.46 ( 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 ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 February 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).
212.189.167.134 (
talk)
09:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
What is your justification for removing the mention of his Roelker Prize? It is listed on the SCSC's website: http://www.sixteenthcentury.org/prizes/roelker/ 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?
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 99.53.220.239 ( talk) 20:56, 1 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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 ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
The article is still full of promotional, flowery language, particularly in parts not supported by the given sources. Problematic sources include:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 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)
I have again removed [1] the "teaching" section as inappropriate tone and inappropriately sourced.
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)
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)
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. 94.167.231.189 ( talk) 23:41, 13 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 94.165.152.208 ( talk) 09:07, 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. 128.90.33.239 ( talk) 20:59, 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. 128.90.90.125 ( talk) 22:40, 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. 94.163.231.134 ( talk) 23:33, 14 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. 5.87.161.220 ( talk) 22:20, 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.
94.161.20.219 (
talk)
05:28, 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. 94.161.20.219 ( talk) 06:02, 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. 128.90.95.55 ( talk) 19:21, 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. 5.86.130.73 ( talk) 22:26, 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. 5.86.130.73 ( talk) 22:48, 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)
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. 5.87.113.144 ( talk) 18:41, 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. 5.87.113.144 ( talk) 19:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, Let's review:
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. 94.163.50.178 ( talk) 05:18, 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. 94.163.189.180 ( talk) 11:01, 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? 94.167.71.117 ( talk) 06:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
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. 94.167.71.117 ( talk) 06:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
RefHistory jumped on it. 212.189.167.134 ( talk) 09:09, 23 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)
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. 108.245.120.149 ( talk) 16:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
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:
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. 212.189.167.134 ( talk) 09:41, 24 June 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)
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):
-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. 94.163.176.186 ( 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)
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)
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)