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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently deleted some information, but was reverted, so would like to request comments here. The info I deleted seemed to be excessive stuff, in two categories:
I'd like to clean a bunch of that up, but realize that this is a contested article and would like some assistance/input from others. Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a huge backstory to this page that you're maybe not aware of, SatyrTN. For months someone kept adding the header tag that this page didn't cite any sources. He'd then pepper the whole article with "citation needed" tags.
So... various people added more and more and more citations until no one could possibly doubt that there were enough. Those of us who watch it are reluctant to remove any source citations at all, because those pesky "citation needed" tags will just come right on back. I wouldn't mind deleting the references to less-notable journals, but ONLY if they are not used to prove any substantive claim in the article. Otherwise they should stay in to preserve the high standards that "someone" obviously demands here. Kuznicki 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did we have a link to this article? Palmer's name is never mentioned, and the paragraph referring to him (as a "longtime top official of the Washington-based Cato Institute") doesn't offer any substantive criticism of his actions or views. We learn that he's a "butt-boy of the neocons," that he "has enlisted in an army of banshees bent on blood," that he's "part of what Pope Benedict XVI describes as a satanic force," and he implies Palmer's cab ride from the Baghdad airport cost taxpayers money. But when you strip away the name-calling, all that's left is that Palmer went to Iraq and gave some lectures. It's apparent that Raimondo doesn't approve of this, but he never explains why. I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia articles to link to sources that amount to little more than vacuous name-calling. Binarybits ( talk) 12:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing the history I can find, an FAC reviewer complained about LRC being used as a source. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Paul/archive3. LRC was the topic here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20# lewrockwell.com, though it appears everyone implicitly agreed it was unreliable and focused instead on minimizing its use. I can't find any other broad discussions, so if there's still a question I suggest we take it to WP:RSN. Will Beback talk 04:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just come across this sentence: 'Raimondo also labels him a "butt-boy of the neocons," describes him as (quoting Pope Benedict XVI) "a satanic force still at work in the world unleashing 'evil energy,'" and complains that Palmer's taxi ride from the Baghdad airport required taxpayer-funded security protection.' How on earth does this series of rants belong in an encyclopedia? Sajita ( talk) 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous user keeps adding two paragraphs that are sourced only by blog posts, contain speculation about Palmer's employment situation that's almost certainly not verifiable, and features original research about the funding of Palmer's new employer, without any obvious tie to Palmer or his work. I think this is pretty clearly out of line, but would be interested in other peoples' opinions. Binarybits ( talk) 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
To expand on this a little bit, the user in question writes that "mentioning Prop. 8 relevant as Palmer is gay and Atlas employment indicates conservative shift." Now, I don't really agree with either of these claims, but that's beside the point. The point is that this is blatant original research. If we think Palmer has undergone a "conservative shift" (whatever that means) then we need to find a reliable source discussing that shift, not cobble together our own dossier to make that point. Binarybits ( talk) 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tom G. Palmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently deleted some information, but was reverted, so would like to request comments here. The info I deleted seemed to be excessive stuff, in two categories:
I'd like to clean a bunch of that up, but realize that this is a contested article and would like some assistance/input from others. Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a huge backstory to this page that you're maybe not aware of, SatyrTN. For months someone kept adding the header tag that this page didn't cite any sources. He'd then pepper the whole article with "citation needed" tags.
So... various people added more and more and more citations until no one could possibly doubt that there were enough. Those of us who watch it are reluctant to remove any source citations at all, because those pesky "citation needed" tags will just come right on back. I wouldn't mind deleting the references to less-notable journals, but ONLY if they are not used to prove any substantive claim in the article. Otherwise they should stay in to preserve the high standards that "someone" obviously demands here. Kuznicki 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did we have a link to this article? Palmer's name is never mentioned, and the paragraph referring to him (as a "longtime top official of the Washington-based Cato Institute") doesn't offer any substantive criticism of his actions or views. We learn that he's a "butt-boy of the neocons," that he "has enlisted in an army of banshees bent on blood," that he's "part of what Pope Benedict XVI describes as a satanic force," and he implies Palmer's cab ride from the Baghdad airport cost taxpayers money. But when you strip away the name-calling, all that's left is that Palmer went to Iraq and gave some lectures. It's apparent that Raimondo doesn't approve of this, but he never explains why. I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia articles to link to sources that amount to little more than vacuous name-calling. Binarybits ( talk) 12:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing the history I can find, an FAC reviewer complained about LRC being used as a source. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Paul/archive3. LRC was the topic here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20# lewrockwell.com, though it appears everyone implicitly agreed it was unreliable and focused instead on minimizing its use. I can't find any other broad discussions, so if there's still a question I suggest we take it to WP:RSN. Will Beback talk 04:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just come across this sentence: 'Raimondo also labels him a "butt-boy of the neocons," describes him as (quoting Pope Benedict XVI) "a satanic force still at work in the world unleashing 'evil energy,'" and complains that Palmer's taxi ride from the Baghdad airport required taxpayer-funded security protection.' How on earth does this series of rants belong in an encyclopedia? Sajita ( talk) 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous user keeps adding two paragraphs that are sourced only by blog posts, contain speculation about Palmer's employment situation that's almost certainly not verifiable, and features original research about the funding of Palmer's new employer, without any obvious tie to Palmer or his work. I think this is pretty clearly out of line, but would be interested in other peoples' opinions. Binarybits ( talk) 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
To expand on this a little bit, the user in question writes that "mentioning Prop. 8 relevant as Palmer is gay and Atlas employment indicates conservative shift." Now, I don't really agree with either of these claims, but that's beside the point. The point is that this is blatant original research. If we think Palmer has undergone a "conservative shift" (whatever that means) then we need to find a reliable source discussing that shift, not cobble together our own dossier to make that point. Binarybits ( talk) 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tom G. Palmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)