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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
@Classicwiki, @Pigsonthewing has already contested the COI tag - please don't readd it without pointing out specific problems, as required by the documentation. I don't think the UPE tag is required either, the article really isn't too bad. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@57.140.16.57 apologies, I clicked your link to the post but I didn't see that there were responses at that time. I have addressed my rationale in tagging over at the help desk post.
Given the admissions in the edit summaries, do you think the IP addresses should be added to the Connected contributor template you have added to the talk page? Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.20:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Classicwiki, IP addresses are so subject to change that I typically don't bother with adding them to the templates unless they're very stable and have been used recently; I've certainly seen them added to such templates before, though. I have no objection to you adding them if you'd like.
Maybe I should add here that I didn't do any deep review of the sources used in this article, so I have no idea how good they actually are/how much info they support/how solid the claim to notability is. I just did a pass for any obvious tonal problems and fixed some issues with the lede. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking a look, that was the whole point of tagging this article, trying to get other eyes on it to improve it. I will leave the matter alone now given that the subject has been warned/guided. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.21:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the sources fail verification others are primary sources, merely links to his work, articles should be based on what others have said about him with significant coverage, I'm not seeing that here and if this was at WP:AFC I doubt it would have be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Clearly James Rosen is editing his own page." Is this a problem? The only "editing" I've done is to add a news outlet that has carried/published one of my columns for the first time. Several questions:
1) I do not see anywhere in Wikipedia guidelines/rules where someone cannot "edit" (as in update) a biographical page about himself/herself. As long as the edit/update is accurate, verifiable, and documented, there is no conflict.
2) Regarding the recent claim, "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources." This confuses me. As an honors history major at the University of California in Berkeley, I was taught by Pulitzer-recipient professor-historians that in ALL historical or biographical documents, primary sources are ALWAYS preferred over secondary or tertiary sources. And indeed when I have read prize-winning biographies -- OR autobiographies -- they have relied heavily on primary sources. So this criticism is completely backwards and reveals a deep failure to understand the nature of scholarly autobiographical or biographical work. As I was taught and as I have subsequently seen over and over in work by top historians and biographers === PRIMARY SOURCES ARE THE GOLD STANDARD.
3) In point of fact: This Wikipedia article has a total of 24 footnoted sources. Only four of them are primary sources. A full TWENTY of them are secondary or tertiary sources. So the claim about excessive use of primary sources is not only off base in scholarly practice, it is factually erroneous. Please remove it. Blueboy567 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
