Talk:Jeffrey Carr

Stuxnet

This section appears to particularly specific. Its a bit more opine then encyclopedic. 173.85.172.251 (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need Secondary RS citations and content here

I have been unable to verify any of the old article content with secondary RS references. I have removed unsourced content, self-promotion, and content sourced to blogs and group blogs. We need to find some RS and additional verified content for this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SPECIFICO, could you please go into more detail? I have reverted to previous revision for now on this until a second person can review on this. Thanks and regards. Shaded0 (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each deletion is documented with the reason. I suggest you restore the deletions and indicate anything that you think was improperly removed so that it can be restored. I doubt you'll find any, as I did a lot of checking and did the deletions piece by piece as I checked. O'Reilly is his publisher and the material is self-sourced promotional bio from the publisher website. Not RS for what's there. There are blogs, dead links, primary sourced and self-serving statements, and other problems with all the sources I removed. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I took a look at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Checklinks and it seems most links are broken and difficult to find working archived versions of links. The content of the page doesn't seem blatantly promotional, and if valid seems notable enough to merit a wikipedia article page. I'll take a look, but the status of the article as you left it is basically AfD status. As-is, I think it meets notability, but needs some work to get it back to a good state to meet reliable sources as you noted. Shaded0 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes with what I think would be adequate for the article, without doing additional research. I also switched the article from start to stub status. Shaded0 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's consider the first sentence of the Overview. It's sourced to his promotional bio at his publisher. This is primary and I was unable to find any RS secondary mention of any of the items he lists in his promo. That doesn't meet WP standards. I had thought it would be useful to show me what to search for, but there's zilch as far as I was able to tell. All the O'Reilly stuff is promo -- including where he calls himself an expert and lists what kind of expert. There are other problems as well, as I indicated in my edit summaries. Please have another look when you get a chance. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the DEF CON info, it looks like he was in a panel in 2010 "Of Bytes and Bullets" (https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-18-archive.html#PanelBytes) that's also available on YouTube for view. In itself not notable, but it supports the security lecturer claim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L7E07Lz1BQ

There's also a quote from him in CIO mag here which I remember reading about at the time through some other tech blog, which would further add to publications info: http://www.cio.com/article/2384191/security0/the-ban-on-feds-at-defcon-draws-a-mixed-reaction.html

Supporting the other claims as to where he's lectured at may be more difficult to find. O'Reilly seems to be the only approximate source within the first few pages of Google that has biographical info on him. As a guide, I looked as a similar author (in the tech field and with more sources) Mark Russinovich. Overall it seems an issue with not having quite enough GOOD sources. So I'd agree with your assessment, although I'd probably disagree with wholly removing the content. Shaded0 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I appreciate that you, like me, are putting effort into trying to salvage this article. But the fact is it's currently sourced to 1) Primary self-promotional bio's at O'Reilly and the conference at which he presented, and 2 a Forbes blog site, where they print whatever's contributed and he quit as soon as they exercised some control over the content. There's no reason why this stuff should stay on WP without RS citations. You've looked, I've looked, and Carr himself edited this article -- all to no effect in establishing his notability. I think the bad-sourced stuff should come out. At the least it would need proper tags to stay in -- PRIMARY, CITATION NEEDED, ETC. SPECIFICO talk 05:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"he quit as soon as they exercised some control over the content" Care to cite a WP:SOURCE for this silly smear? Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar. Academic/specialist notability (measured by citations from peers in the field, not by someone saying he's "such a great expert") is painfully obvious to anyone without an axe to grind. Guccisamsclub (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carr is not, nor does he claim to be, a notable academic figure. I have removed the primary, promotional, and wiki-sourced content that has just been re-inserted. This is edit-warring and is not constructive. Two editors have scoured the web for sources and kept what we have been able to verify in secondary RS citations. You may list publications in the publications area beneath the article without secondary sources. I did that for the O'Reilly published book and you may wish to add any published articles you can find in primary sources. Do not include blog material such as Forbes Contributor stuff, but other articles published as editorial content may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis. Note: Crunchbase is a wiki -- anyone can edit it. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO, JFG, and Shaded0: — SPECIFICO: This is what's known about him. Someone more knowledgeable in the field can read the numerous secondary sources and see what they they say about his work. S/he can also read his published work and summarize it. According to the citation count, he meets WP:ACADEMIC. You only option will be AfD, and your only argument will be that there is not enough thorough discussion in secondary sources to merit a bio. DO NOT delete any sources—without reading half of them—ahead of AfD to strengthen your case. If you're just trying to make a WP:POINT at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, exactly as you did with James Clapper, forget it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no AfD on this article. You are edit-warring PRIMARY references and content into the article. Please review PRIMARY, V, and WEIGHT. You may not cite a list of publications as a source for the fact that he's authored them. You need secondary RS that discusses those publications. Otherwise millions of authors and consultants would have their very own WP articles. Please undo your primary- and blog-sourced content and work collaboratively with other editors here. And as always, please confine your comments to content not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are going to delete footnotes to quality specialist sources, just because we haven't yet expanded upon them? Before you claimed—FALSELY—that all sources were Carr trying to toot his own horn. This is absolutely ridiculous. Also, what does WEIGHT have to do with anything here? Which aspect of his bio is being given WP:UNDUE weight? Or are these just random WP:CAPS with no relation to anything? Here is the format you should follow, every single time you want to challenge something: This (... specific text ...) is WP:INSERTCAPHERE because (...justification...). Not "please review WP:CAPS". You might as well say: "please buy firecrackers." Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise millions of authors and consultants would have their very own WP articles. Thousands of academics and specialists get their own pages based on citations of their research in RS. Carr has plenty of those. The problem is that it's using these RS to summarize the conclusions of Carr's research requires actually knowing something about the topics that Carr has researched, which are pretty esoteric. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to follow WP policy and guidelines. We don't use primary sources to establish Notability. For example, the grey goose bit in the lede is primary sourced because it is cited to his promotional bio in a conference program. These are not edited or vetted -- they simply present whatever press release or self-description the speakers cite. We've all been there, done that. We don't use incidental mentions of a person to establish notability. We don't use lists, promotional blurbs, blogs, or frogs. Please read up on the relevant policies that others here are trying to sustain. You may also wish to consider the difference between aritlce sourcing and sourcing to establish notability. Please see WP:GNG if that is your concern. And no more edit warring. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other sources in the body that mention Grey Goose, but whaetever—I just inserted a citation to a secondary source. WP:PRIMARY is sometimes WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD for certain things and under certain conditions: quotes, publication dates, dates of birth, work history, the topic and conclusions of a paper etc. An academic webpage is clearly a primary source for example, but nobody in their right mind would complain about it being cited for the name of the subject's current employer. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guci, Are you pretending not to understand? All notable authors have lists of articles but not all authors with lists of articles are WP:Notable. I would hate to think you are trolling here, but then again I'd hate to think you didn't already know that before your deflection above. You need good sources. Otherwise either the unsourced stuff or the article itself will be deleted. Can't say when can't say where can't say how, but that's how these things end up. You need to keep working on policy based improvements. I'm done discussing past edits and will focus on future edits. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't get it. "All notable authors have lists of articles but not all authors with lists of articles are WP:Notable." If you genuinely think he is not notable, there is one place for your to go: AfD. Since several of your concern about his authorship of a blog and his work with Grey Goose have already been addressed using quality WP:SECONDARY sources, you are reduced to complaining about WP:PRIMARY (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD) by inertia. And no you do not need peer-reviewed secondary sources to figure out that he wrote for Slate, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and Forbes, although if you delete this info I won't revert you. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Run to the nearest shelter. This article appears to be experiencing refbombing in the main-space. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First it was lack of sources, now it's WP:REFBOMB sources. WP:WEIGHT, WP:PRIMARY; WP:PROMOTIONAL now WP:REFBOMB, WP:WHATEVERSHITISNEXT. Have some decency folks.

Now ideally, we should not need to cite a variety of reliable sources for something so stupid simple as the bare facts of one's work history. We don't need to cite The Journal of Academic Affairs to establish that Prof.X works at Uni Y. But what do you do when someone who wants Prof.X deleted as source on some page declares: "The department website is WP:PRIMARY, WP:PROMOTIONAL not RS—please show me an RS that says he teaches philosophy at this university; do not give undue WP:WEIGHT to his current job title, unless that weight is justified by the body of RS." Does this sounds sane? Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without too much effort, I found much better self-description than the outdated promo's for defunct websites and other past ventures. Instead of carping, I suggest you fish for better refs. It's fun. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still need independent RS

The list of publications needs independent RS discussion to establish that they are noteworthy content for a global encyclopedia. Otherwise, they should be listed in a "publications" or "external links" section, where primary-sourced material is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carr's self description and current roles

See inter alia here [1] concerning the failure of his previous enterprise. See here [2] for his self-description of his current attempt to resume his lapsed consulting career with a package deal at $1000 a year, including 4 hours consulting time and retail products produced by others. [3] SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carr's most recent self-description details the failure of his previous enterprise and describes his SYSOP work for medical and legal practices. Edit-warring to reinsert obsolete data and nullify his current self description is a violation of core policy. The current information should be put back in place. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sourced content Poulsen Daily Beast

An editor has removed the RS discussion (Poulsen, Daily Beast) that contextualizes Carr's POV that the Crowdstrike attribution of the 2016 Russian DNC hacks is incorrect. Expert opinion, well-cited to RS, provides context to our readers. We should either restore that RS material or, in the alternative, remove Carr's UNDUE opinions, from a marginal source, which received no credence in mainstream reporting. In my opinion, it would be just as well to remove the entire bit, (since Carr's opinion is not noteworthy) but we cannot remove only the mainstream expert perspective. WP does not recount fringe or highly unusual theories without letting our readers know the context. Two quick examples: 9-11 fringe theories laetrile. Like this article, those are the pages about individuals who promote those false theories. WP provides context. "The source does not mention Carr and thus is not "directly related to the topic of the article" does not justify removal of RS relevant article content. SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]