Jump to content

Talk:Zach Iscol

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Comment: let me know if I got this right!

Created/expanded by CathyF.13 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Review

  • Created within 7 days of DYK entry.
  • Over 1,500 characters.
  • The ALT1 hook is accurate, the main hook is NOT accurate and should not be used.

Reviewed by -- GreenC 19:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC:, the review completed above did not include a DYK icon, and the reviewer's status for the nomination is unclear. Flibirigit (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Flibirigit , added a tick. Unclear what reviewer unclear means. -- GreenC 17:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
restoring tick as per review by GreenC. Thank you for clearing up the review. ALT0 has been struck as per the comments above. Flibirigit (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC and Flibirigit: it appears likely that this DYK nomination was a result of paid editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page was deleted under another name a few months ago

[edit]

This page was deleted back in October Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Iscol. The recreation under “Zach Iscol” appears to be a dodge around that action also given the tone of the article, its content, and the editors responsible for making it I think theres a high probability we’re looking at paid editing here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the continued coverage since then there is now a stronger case for notability but the sketchiness remains sketchy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest either way if this appears on DYK, do as you think best. -- GreenC 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is already on the front page as I write this. -- GreenC 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won’t argue that it wasn’t elegantly done. They were shockingly successful. Just FYI the old page had overwhelming COI issues too. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the DYK nomination page is a good place to search for UPE/COI. --- GreenC 13:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense, there is no faster way to get an article in front of a million eyeballs. Maybe a limit on DYK nominations for the pages of current political candidates would be a good topic of future discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist Comments

[edit]

Needs an updated infobox for B5 criterion. Shotgunscoop (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? 2603:7000:2143:8500:F57D:E78E:CA0F:BB07 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry User:Shotgunscoop - I think I know what Milhist means now. But can you explain further what should be updated? I'm struggling to figure that out. And is it ok to put in a photo of the battle, which that perhaps seems to be about, if the photo does not have him in particular in it? --2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7 (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7 There is pretty good information in this article. Usually the infobox for a military person should include the dates/wars/units of their service, as well as an image for modern figures. It is okay to put any related image in the body of the article but you should find something that features his face for the infobox. The B5 criterion relates to supporting materials and adding this stuff would bump the article up to B-class, as it seems like all the paragraphs are well cited now for B1. I'm assuming you know this, but if you click "show" in the bottom of the military history wikiproject box, you should be able to see the B-class criteria. Shotgunscoop (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional/advertising tag

[edit]

Also - it looks as things are quiet on this page at this point, and advertising has been addressed, so the advertising/promotional tag I would think can come off. --2603:7000:2143:8500:F57D:E78E:CA0F:BB07 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree there, still reads overly promotional. Needs a trim and an edit. Pared down a little, but this article had BS in it like "He won an award for being the bravest soldier boy in the army" as the opening sentence when you made this comment, so we need a more neutral eye before taking down the tag. JesseRafe (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your edits in response were excellent. I believe that you above misstate the "awarded a Bronze Star" inclusion in the lede - it is indeed appropriate for inclusion, as a quite notable award. Not at all fluff. I'm also not quite of the same mind as to going for the more general rather than the more specific and accurate, which you've leaned towards in certain instances. Other of your edits were, as I said, quite good. I also don't see as necessarily appropriate the deletion of information as to his grandfather, if it is covered in an RS that in turn is covering him. Otherwise, I would be in agreement as to its deletion. Same comment as to his award deletion. But overall, excellent edits.
Might you know what the above Milhist reference is to? Stay safe. 2603:7000:2143:8500:F57D:E78E:CA0F:BB07 (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words on the quality of most of my edits. I'd like to note that I subjectively and objectively disagree with one point you raise - I did not delete information about his Bronze Star and its details -- it's there in the appropriate section; but it does not belong in the lede and the award itself is non-notable. I believe more than a million have been given out. Medal of Honor, for instance, is a notable award in that anyone who wins one of those is likely to generate enough independent press coverage to be notable enough to have an article, Iscol became notable through other ventures, not the Bronze Star. I cut out the grandfather when restructuring, if you want to go into those sources, please do, and reduce the cites in that section. There were either 3 word sentences or 4 clause sentences and everything had 2-5 cites after each comma, it was absurd and still is. I didn't delete any sources, just moved them after commas but I wager we don't need each one, it's not a spaghetti-at-the-wall scenario, but maybe it was when original authors were trying to get this past deletion. Lastly, no, I don't but I imagine that's related to some Military History portal, infobox, or WikiProject that this article was tagged with. Overlapping Wikiprojects are sometimes subject to sometimes conflicting editing/layout/formatting standards, depending on what the article most fundamentally is - such as what infobox to use, or what section headings are standard. I think our discussion is separate from Shotgunscoop's flag for others concerned with the Milhist sections of Wikipedia. JesseRafe (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The reason I believe it belongs in the lede, and I am of that view more firmly as I look at the guidelines, is it is a part of proper and concise summary and overview of the most important contents of the article. Part of the basics. This lede as it is is quite short already without you deleting that, so a need to keep the lede at a manageable length is not an issue. It's covered in much of the RS coverage of the subject, supporting the appropriateness of it being in the lede. BTW, his lede was with a V - only a subset .. like 2.5% of Bronze Medals - are for valor in combat, in the Iraq War two to three thousand. Keep in mind, a million Americans have fought in the Iraq War. If for some reason, that I'm missing, you feel a need to struggle through this issue, let's bring it to an appropriate Board, like the Milhist page you helped me find (thanks for pointing to that as what Milhist is all about, it looks like it must be Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history). 2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7 (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two to three thousand were awarded in just the one war? Yeah, no need to note that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Out of one million. Tiny percentage. And noted in many RSs - which is our test; not any one editor's personal subjective view. Highly notable. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C575:4149:C023:3136 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its notable enough for inclusion in the body, not the lead though... Its a middling award. Nothing you’ve said has convinced me otherwise, in fact its convinced me that you’re edits are disruptive. I get that you’re trying to lionize some trust fund kid's mediocre achievements into actual accomplishments, but maybe he really is just mediocre? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We still appear to have major promotional issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name them. All the language is objective, the sources are third party RSs, and it is well-sourced as the above editors points out. Just because an editor writes articles on three different candidates competing against each other for on political position, does not lend itself to the accusation that one of the three articles is "promotional". Just the opposite, frankly. It's sort of unfounded in light of that, don't you think? 2603:7000:2143:8500:C575:4149:C023:3136 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What/who in the world are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which part? 2603:7000:2143:8500:C575:4149:C023:3136 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're being combative, this article still has people using weasel words and trying to embellish. Also, you seem to be an SPA, spend more time elsewhere on WP and see what the standards are in practice, not just your pet page. It's ironic that you claim Bronze Stars are notable, without any hint of what notability means on WP and decrying "one editor's personal subjective view", while also proving that they're not notable with the thousands that were given. JesseRafe (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, again, it's still in the article, no one is saying it needs to be deleted. Just not the first sentence and not with the weaselly "for bravery in combat" thrown in to boot. JesseRafe (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jesse - I'm unclear. You are saying I am being combative for asking for specificity? We've worked together well elsewhere - what is up with your assertions on this page? List the weasel words, and we can discuss them here. And what on earth makes it appear that I am an SPA? I'm certainly the opposite. You can plainly see that. Just check my edits - I've created a number of competing candidates for the same office. That's a MPA. And as you can see, my edits aren't even just about politics, or baseball, or religious groups, but including those and all over. Bronze stars are notable in the first place, obviously, because we have a page devoted to them. And the # you point to is the same as the notable number in all other sorts of fields - how many US politicians have been elected to office in that time period? And 2,000 out of 1 million is a tiny percentage. And if you look at the number of articles about him that mention it, you can see it is notable. That's how we look at notability - not what one editor subjectively feels. And look at wp:lede, anyway. The test there. It's even a lower bar than "notability." I've given you guideline supported standards. You've given me "but there are 2,000." So what. Do we not mention in the lede that someone was a US Congressman; because we had 2,000 of them in the past two decades? That's the problem with arguments that are not based on guidelines. And pointing it out is not combative. It is proper talk page discussion. And yes - the discussion is whether it is proper for the lede. Just look at wp:lede. It certainly meets the standard. And there are as you know different Bronze Stars. The ones for bravery in combat are very few - and those are the special ones, and that is what he has. Of course one has to distinguish his star from the other Bronze stars. And the "advertising" tag looks more and more - especially in light of the tone of this discussion - like tag-bombing to me. Driven by your wildly mistaken assumption that an editor who writes articles on three competing candidates must be partial to one of them? That's just silly. Take a look. Think it over. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C15F:EC15:6EAC:714D (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t know what WP:TAGBOMBING is, this is about as far as its humanly possible to get from TAGBOMBING. You’re getting into WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS territory now, walk it back. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what tagbombing is, and why this isnt it. And please explain why this is a personal attack. I certainly do not want to make a personal attack. 2603:7000:2143:8500:394F:E967:FCBD:9F51 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I linked WP:TAGBOMBING. Right off the bat tag bombing has to be multiple tags and the editor can’t have stayed around, those are the most basic conditions for tag bombing and they are not met here. It also doesn’t meet any of the additional conditions, it doesn't even resemble tag bombing. Its a personal attack because tag bombing is a disruptive behavior, accusing editors who are not tag bombing of tag bombing would be a serious issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, there is no way to read this exchange and believe you have consensus to remove the tag. You've been pushing aggrandizing edits for this subject and arguing in patent bad faith about the standards of notability. JesseRafe (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, what part of this exchange led you to believe that you had consensus for that change? If you keep doing that you’re going to get range blocked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jesse - I've asked for specificity showing advertising here. Crickets. It is a claim. But not supported. I waited. Crickets. I understand that even though I wrote article on three competing candidates for the same position, someone or two believe that that must be some nefarious doing if the article is well written. But that does not hold up if one considers it. And there is no need to punish one of the three articles with an advertising tag that is not founded on that basis. And when one makes the points and asks the questions I asked, and gets no answer, for days, it is proper to remove the tag. Especially here, in this circumstances. But let's bring this to a board if we can't move it forward. What board would you suggest? If you don't want to review what I wrote, check it out, and reconsider. 2603:7000:2143:8500:394F:E967:FCBD:9F51 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've gotten specificity, whether you pay attention to what others say or not is a a different matter. You've gotten direction, but you've been combative and dismissive instead. You've gotten several links sent to your talk page(s), and I don't know how long you've been here - in some ways it looks like a while, in others (talk page comment formatting) you still seem new, so maybe you don't realize what "notability" means on WP, or what "consensus" means. We are all volunteers and no one is obligated to convince you of anything. You raised some points and they were responded in kind. You re-raised them, appealing to simile and emotion instead of WP policies, and they might not have been answered again. We don't have unlimited time to regurgitate the same responses, but as I and HEB said, there is no goodfaith way to read this discussion and think you had consensus to remove the tag. Also, you keep strawmanning it as others are calling it advertising - that's just what the tag generates as; I'm sure whoever first put it up did so with the aim of the "promotional" reading, not an ad like for a product. HEB made some very good and thorough edits, culling a lot of the source bloat which was badly needed. Thanks! A lot of the tenuous stuff was removed as well. It reads a lot less promotionally now. JesseRafe (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the same IP adding the same fluff, then that's all the more reason the tag remains. The consensus (above) was against these same additions in March and it would be reasonable to expect it to remain in May or June. Please start a new discussion about what you want to include (and mention any COIs you might have, please) and await consensus before re-adding. Please try to discuss the merits of the content without targeting editors and maintain an assumption of good faith. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having never heard of this person, I took a quick read (in response to this post, and personally would suggest the following deletions:
  • Therapy is confidential, free, and there is no application process. It offers a number of treatments, including psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and virtual reality, and the number of sessions is open-ended – there are not any limits on frequency of care. Advertising-style language and unnecessary detail about the project.
  • Iscol said that post-pandemic, the city will need programs to educate New Yorkers about mental health and effectively address mental illness. New York City's last mayor with a military background was David Dinkins, a Marine veteran who was mayor from 1990 to 1993. This is an encyclopedia article, not his campaign website.
  • Hillary Clinton said: "I’ve known Zach Iscol for over two decades, and he comes at everything from the mind-set of 'How do we bring resources and assets together to solve problems and address inequities.' He’s done it at the community level, the national level and in combat zones. He's got a big heart and is indefatigable when he puts his mind to something. This is an encyclopedia article, not his campaign website.
  • Candidates who raise at least $125,000 from at least 500 donors qualify for matching city funds from the New York City Campaign Finance Board, on an 8-to-1 match basis. As of February 16, 2021, he was one of three candidates who had qualified for matching funds, along with Brian Benjamin and Brad Lander. His fundraising has already been covered; pedantic details about matching funds don't add value to the article.
That's my 2¢ Schazjmd (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as it stands looks kinda borderline to me, maybe leaning a bit towards not being promotional, though the comments here make it clear it's been substantially changed since this discussion started.
One thing I can speak to with some authority is the issue of mentioning the BSM in the lede. Uh, no.
I personally know more than a dozen people who've been awarded one. You don't even need to be a member of the military to be awarded one, and for a good long while, the (Ch)air Force was handing them out like door prizes. If there was significant coverage of the awarding, and it was the events that merited the award that made one notable (a la Monica Beltran), then that's fine. But this guy's running for office and had previously run for an even larger office, and that is what makes him notable, not his service. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

[edit]

There’s no evidence to support this tag. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Iscol&diff=1083924658&oldid=1083886846 It should go. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E82A:7668:3088:CA29 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP. Are you the same IP editor who created this page and has been editing it ever since? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm also the same IP editor who created two other pages at the same time, of candidates running for the same position - they were all running against each other, and did not have articles. Weird tag. There is zero basis for it. None has been articulated. --2603:7000:2143:8500:D118:1E22:1DC4:D43 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zach_Iscol&oldid=1255567714"