Jump to content

Talk:Carlos Watson (journalist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV: Article appears to largely mirror the subject's own personal site

[edit]

This entry appears to be made up almost exclusively of publicity material copied verbatim from the subject's own personal website and contains mostly unsourced and/or unsupported POV statements. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, except according to archive.org the page you're referring to was first created mid 2007 and this article, at that point, was already substantially written. Looks more like that web site was based on this one, and should attribute us. I don't disagree there are a few statements here that could be more neutral in tone, but let's just fix those. Most of the points to me read simply as factual, ie. he went here, did that, etc. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article's history, the original creator is listed as Topical650, a user who has never contributed to any other article or entry on Wikipedia either before or since. The domain, "conversationswithcarlos.com", hosting the page on which the virtually identical biographical material appears is also registered to the subject's own production company, Run Rabbit Run Productions LLC, and the same material also appears verbatim in his publicity "bio" prepared by the Keppler Speaker Bureau which represents the subject as an agent. It seems quite likely, therefore, that "Topical650" created the Wikipedia page (possibly also as an agent of the entry's subject) for publicity as opposed to encyclopedic purposes. While the information may be more or less accurate, its form does not appear to be "objective" within the parameters of Wikipedia and contains unsupported and/or unsourced POV statements. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The original author may have had an agenda, but that doesn't inherently mean the article is not accurate or not neutral. What specifically do you think is problematic about the content at this point? I made some edits yesterday to remove what i thought was non-encyclopedic language. What more do you think is needed so the content is neutral? I don't think there is a problem with moving this forward, independent of who has edited it in the past and if some prior edits were POV. I'm willing to volunteer time for that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Keppler Bureau document, it says it was created December 2007 but doesn't claim copyright. Could also be based on this page? Though it seems more similar to a version from before October 2007. Still unclear to me if there is a WP:COPYVIO here, but I hear your concern. The consistency implies that someone may have started the article with professional copy. I'd suggest we move forward and rewrite sections as we find good citations. I searched for sources, added below here, and i think he clearly meets the notability requirements for an article because there are sufficient secondary sources about him. Then for me it's just a question of what is noteworthy about him and what of his history is neutral and true. I also added some fact tags yesterday for things that seem questionable but not too controversial (to my eye, granted). But most of the did this, graduated here, kind of copy is neutral tone to me. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern was that this article was not sourced and appeared to be based mostly on promotional materials. Those issues are seeming to be appropriately addressed. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Awesome. And thank you for tagging the article, got me inspired to do some work and find some sources. Nothing like a challenge to get one going. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]

I noticed that jrank.org has a biography about him by Chris Routledge including these sources, which would could also review (and link to if we find online versions). None of these are currently in the article, i believe:

  • Black Enterprise, September 2001. link plus: [1] and [2]
  • Contra Costa Times, October 1, 2004.
  • Essence, November 2004, p.148.
  • Mountain View Voice (California), September 3, 2004. link, plus this also: [3]
  • People Weekly, June 28, 2004, p. 126.
  • "Board of Directors," College Track, online (January 21, 2005).
  • "Carlos Watson," CNN, broken link (February 8, 2005). others: [4]
  • "Transcript: Carlos Watson," Tavis Smiley Archive, online (January 25, 2005).

Others

Article naming

[edit]

Ok, so this article has migrated from (television host) to (television) to (journalist). Do we still feel like that's an appropriate sub title? I was thinking possibly (businessman) now that he's investing and promoting new ventures. Part of the need for a parenthetical suffix is that there is another notable Carlos Watson, and I'm going to setup a disambiguation page to put them at parity next. Perhaps over time this Carlos will supplant the other to such a degree in notability we'll remove the suffix entirely. Opinions? - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, from rereading Wikipedia:DISAMBIG I'm thinking now that this article should be primary and the other Carlos Watson moved with a disambig link to him. From traffic statistics, this article is three times as popular. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Carlos Watson (journalist). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the (September 2021) NPOV tag on the article still apt?

[edit]

The only discussion I see on this talk page about whether this article is NPOV is from 2009 (see first section above). But the tag seems to have been added to the article itself in September 2021. The article did and still does includes a fair number of his professional accomplishments. Those happened, and so did the recent very epic fall from grace which seems to me to be adequately chronicled in the article as it stands. I feel like the article is pretty balanced at this point and the tag could be removed. What specific reasons does anyone have for wanting that tag to be there? Novellasyes (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like the article is obviously problematic so if the tagger didn't leave a message here I think it can be removed. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carlos_Watson_(journalist)&oldid=1257955057"