Talk:Wesley Wark
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| 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: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Original research
[edit]User:Doktor Demento has been introducing content saying that the subject is poorly informed based on Wark's own writings. The latest edit doesn't use that exact phrase, but still has the same meaning. That is clear original research, as we base Wikipedia article on what secondary sources say about their subjects. I have no wish to get into an edit war, so have added an {{original research}} template to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Not all additions to a page are backed up by published works with specific references. Sometimes, one must look at a body of another’s work, and then formulate an informed opinion based on that work. Mr. Wark might indeed be an expert on matters of intelligence. Nevertheless, examples of his published works or contributions to media reporting in the past 2 years identify a specific example of where his experience failed to identify easily obtainable facts available to anyone interested in finding them. I see no problem with identifying such shortcomings in an expert’s background if they are well documented and provide Wikipedia readers with additional context with which to judge the credibility of an article’s content. Anyone can call themselves an expert; if available evidence counters or modifies such claims, responsible and knowledgeable editors should make it known. Doktor Demento (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Wesley Wark page
[edit]Not all additions to a page are backed up by published works with specific references. Sometimes, one must look at a body of another’s work, and then formulate an informed opinion based on that work. Mr. Wark might indeed be an expert on matters of intelligence. Nevertheless, examples of his published works or contributions to media reporting in the past 2 years identify a specific example of where his experience failed to identify easily obtainable facts available to anyone interested in finding them. I see no problem with identifying such shortcomings in an expert’s background if they are well documented and provide Wikipedia readers with additional context with which to judge the credibility of an article’s content. Anyone can call themselves an expert; if available evidence counters or modifies such claims, responsible and knowledgeable editors should make it known. Doktor Demento (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)