User talk:KJP1/Archive 3

Spiro Agnew

This is to advise you that the peer review in which you recently participated has now been closed. Many thanks for your help. The article has been nominated at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Cragside

Hello. Sorry about the long radio silence - it's been, and still is, a bit of a struggle at my (admittedly lovely) job so my Cragsiding moments have been few and far between. As you'll see at its Talk page, I have the book but am not sure I have much to add. If however you have specific things you want me to check please yell. At the moment I can probably deliver better on short uncreative tasks than on anything more clever! Family have been up there (in North'd) more recently but not over that way specifically, and I am not sure when I will next be there so whilst the photo is not actually forgotten, it is not the subject of immediate action either! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Cragside and SchroCat

Hello again! As you'll see at the PR page I've largely kept up with SchroCat's comments, but a couple of things stumped me a little:

• Can we establish whether the Pevsner quotation about which SchroCat asked is really in his voice or just in that of the Guides series? I know it doesn't matter that much, and I currently have what I think is a safe default there, but I suppose that if we knew it was a direct Pevsner-himself remark then it might be nice to mention that. I will have a look but I am not sure how close I will get to nailing it.

I think your approach is just right. If I had the original 1957 edition, which unfortunately I don't, we may have got closer to knowing whether it's Sir Nick himself, but even then Ian Richmond was a contributor, although not co-author. So I think referencing the Guide, which is our source after all, is the best way forward.

Agreed, thanks.

• Slight confusion on my part around (.) and ... for what I think were omitted words. Please have a look at the two instances I did and see if they work.

These look fine to me.

Glad to hear it! :)

• The first mention of the word "inglenook" says it's another one, as if we had mentioned them already. I assume that this is a hangover from an earlier version where this was the case but I wasn't sure how to reword it with the apparent assumption of reader familiarity ... ah, good old Shaw and those inglenooks - what a wag, eh? Or something.

Perhaps a slight reword here to something like; "The dining room off the library contains a "Gothic" fireplace, with one of Shaw's favoured inglenooks".

Thank you. I'll try something like that. I have a slight nag in the back of my mind over this still but I am not sure I can yet articulate it clearly. Watch this space, but please do not hold breath.

• Update: funnily enough it wasn't such a hangover from an earlier version, as far as I can see. In this edit it got introduced as already the first appearance and already labelled "another", all in one fell swoop! Maybe you had some re-ordering of text in mind which would have accounted for this? Anyway, I will shush now and leave you to figure it out uninterrupted.

• Finally ... a quotation query not yet, I think raised ... oh no, too complicated for this time of day and non-urgent - I will ask you in daylight! Just leaving this here as a reminder to myself.

Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, got it. The quotation from Harry Stuart Goodhart-Rendel where he says it's "one of the most dramatic compositions in all architecture". We use this in the lead, and again in the "Architecture and description" section. In the lead, we are describing the result of the transformation, so perhaps implicitly the whole thing; certainly it is not nailed down further than that. In the later section we specify that he was talking about the entrance front. Does this matter? I may be seeing an issue which doesn't really exist! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters that Goodhart-Rendel is referring to one bit or another, although we could replace it with the Pevsner quote if people get concerned at FAC. But I do think we should introduce G-R at first meeting, as you did with Shaw. Perhaps something like, "The result was described by the architect and writer Harry Stuart Goodhart-Rendel as "one of the most dramatic compositions in all architecture".

I've done that - seems entirely reasonable. To my mind it adds to his respectability that (much) later he was president of RIBA but it seemed like me trying too hard if I shoehorned it in, and it is only a click away for the interested.

You've done a fine job. Have to walk the dogs now (not a euphemism!) but will have a look when I get back. KJP1 (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much; hope walkies was nice and doggies behaved well (because they always do, right?). I will try to look in later but am about to launch into a day of tenor horn teaching so wish me luck! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't made the above suggestions in the article space, as they need to work for you. No hurry in doing them if you are in the middle of Mr Bourgeois's A Hornting We Will Go - which sounds rather splendid! We can regroup these evening and assess the lie of the land. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this and with your kind comments. Apart from some tidying/explanation at the PR page I think I am now up to date. ... It would be lovely if my TH players were doing Bourgeois but they aren't quite that advanced yet! Alan Pring's "Simply Brass" book is what we are all about! Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Williams (conservator)

Thanks again for your review of this article! Just letting you know that I have given it another copy edit, and brought it to FAC (nomination page). Fingers crossed! --Usernameunique (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Inglenooks! (or: a Shaw Thing)

I've figured out what worried me. If we said that the first one was one of Shaw's favoured inglenooks, or something similar, we would still be making a claim that ee, 'e were a right one with them inglenooks or words to that effect ... I'm not sure that we can support the suggestion although I am happy to accept that it is probably correct. You have the source and I wondered if there is anything in it that could help; I have also ordered this book so I will be pleased to take a scan through too. I'll also look for other sources which might support this, as it would be nice to have it as in effect a note on what styles and feelings he embraced. For now, to be on the safe side, I have reduced it to something which is blander but which can't be challenged in the same way. Please don't feel that you have to respect this though - If I'm wrong, please edit away! Thanks and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

Thank you for Cragside which is No. 2 on my review-to-do ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing and thanked you yesterday. You're doing some great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That’s very kind of you both. Nothing on the grand scale from me, but I continue to enjoy it. All the best with your own endeavours. KJP1 (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Just received a FA star on the day that piece was mentioned on the Main page, DYK? Encouraging, after two that were unsuccessful. - All the best to you! Will get to the house, but Mendelssohn comes first, - PRs are somewhat neglected these days, I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered - Gerda - If you had time to comment, that would be great. We plan to push on to FAC sometime next week. If that's too tight for PR with Mendelssohn, we'd appreciate your comments at FA and will let you know when it goes. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Sullivan

I am importuning close colleagues to look in, if they are inclined, at the peer review for Arthur Sullivan. Ssilvers and I are planning to take the article to FAC, and if you are inclined to look in at the peer review and give us your comments, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley talk 22:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I should be delighted. KJP1 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, KJP1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Tottenham outrage

Many thanks for your thoughts at the PR for the Tottenham outrage; the article is now at FAC, should you have the time and desire to comment further. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheaper than wine, anyway  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cragside FAC

Well, I've done it ... or more accurately, I think I have done it, trying to follow the instructions carefully during my lunch break while a succession of Y5 and Y6 children come in wanting to practise Jingle Bells or whatever! I think, therefore, that it would be a very good idea for you to have a careful look and make sure I have not broken anything. Thanks again for the involvement ... it's very interesting! With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

PS I wasn't absolutely sure how to get you in as the other nominator so I just C&P'd you into where it had already transcluded me from tildes - is that OK? DBaK (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

PPS Oh yes sorry, another query: I simply removed the PR banner, replacing it with FAC - was that correct, or do we somehow preserve the link to the PR? Maybe it doesn't matter ... sorry, inexperience showing! :) DBaK (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Replied, wrongly, on DBK's Talkpage - should have kept the discussion together. KJP1 (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha, no worries ... the joys of hypertext! DBaK (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I was intrigued by Tim's point about Krupp vs. Krupp's and indeed Krupps. I think there is something odd going on here about how we say certain company names. It's perhaps a little old-school; it's highly selective though I can't see the criteria; I think it may be a bit British/colonial/presumptive/ownerish. (I have here in the back of my mind the mostly-discredited "The" in places names like Lebanon, Ukraine etc, though only as examples of things with a similar vibe for me, not as direct parallels with the Krupps usage.) Our own Krupp article has the one unsolicited Krupp's, and Dixon says Krupps as if it is normal. I have the nagging feeling that I have seen it in print, perhaps in an older source or in one being quoted, apropos of Krupp vs. Armstrong.

At the same time, I am not sure if I am going to be able to track down anything useful. It's possible that we should not argue the toss re usage but only say Krupps/Krupp's in a cited quote, if necessary ... otherwise I worry that it is potentially a lot of effort, though interesting, over nothing very important. Or maybe you have a good source for this usage which would nail it? Anyway, enough on that for now. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Krupp is fine, Krupp's is fine if meaning the person's company, firm, etc. Krupps is something to fight, even if it's somewhere in print. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Marle, Jeroen van

Hi KJP1. You've probably noticed that I changed it again. I don't think that I have broken the way the referencing works, but you would be prudent to check!

I emailed a very nice Dutch academic friend – former professor of Dutch at UCL and former director of the Fryske Akademy – and got a very detailed reply. Basically, almost anything I did was OK and Low Countries people are used to having to check under both V and M! But the one thing that was not OK, as you had suspected, was to have a capital V among the Ms as I had! Doh. It appears that I'd tried to follow two reasonable rules but really done 2+2=5. I also checked other places on Wikipedia where Jeroen van Marle is mentioned. Some just call him that (like Fred Smith) anyway so they don't help. Others that do list with surname first, though (Smith, Fred), have opted for Marle, Jeroen van, where you cheat the "van" in by popping it after his first name. So that's what I have done and I think it makes sense and looks fine, and certainly better than my first attempt. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Bittersweet season's greetingd

		Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
		Seasonal greetings for 2017, and best wishes for 2018. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contributions, which have done much to enhance the encyclopedia and make me feel it's worthwhile to keep contributing. So here's to another year's productive editing, with old feuds put aside and peace, goodwill and friendship for all! Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

Martinevans123 ^{(Santa's Drop-in Centre)} ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...... Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

---

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you have a good run in 2018!!

Martin - and all warmest wishes to you and yours for Christmas and for 2018. KJP1 (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Cragside

Just a note to thank you for everything. It's been a great experience. I wish you and yours a lovely Christmas and New Year. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

PS I commented briefly at the FAC and made a minor change at the Heald/"shunted"/ex-quote bit. Hope this was OK!

DBaK - And to you and yours too. It's been great and I think we've done a pretty good job, although nothing less than the magician and his Northern Neuschwanstein deserved. We'll have it over the line by New Year, if not before. Changes all fine, of course. KJP1 (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

!!!!! (big smile) DBaK (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick question following your previous helpful advice

Hi KJP1 Thanks for your helpful feedback on Church of St Edmund, Mansfield Woodhouse Further to that - what's accepted practice when referring to another "thing". EG: there are 2 other churches linked to St Edmund's in the parish, though no article about them (I think I might attempt them). Do I just refer to them in plain text, or is it best to put in square brackets. like St Chad's Church, Mansfield Woodhouse, so a red "not yet written" link comes up. If you see what I mean?

Enchufla Con Clave (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Enchufla Con Clave - My pleasure, delighted to help. I'm assuming you mean the Church of St Chad, Pleasey Vale, here [1] and the Community church that's not listed? Yes, if you're planning to write the articles, put the titles in double square brackets. Then, if you click on them, you'll get the draft page to start you off. Couple of other things. As an editor more eagle-eyed than I spotted, you capitalised the Of in Church of St Edmund, Mansfield Woodhouse. It should be lower case. Something to remember when you do another. Also, you'll find that Grade II listed buildings, as opposed to those at Grade II*, have much less information about them. About 92% of listed buildings are Grade II, whereas only 5.5% are Grade II*, so there s much more written about the more important, and less common, ones. Lastly, do you know Pevsner? They are superb sources for UK buildings. Have a go with what you've planned and I'll have a look. We can always correct it if needed. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

KJP1 - Thanks very much :-) Not heard of Pevsner - I'll take a look. I do have a book I picked up in a second hand shop telling you the history, notable people and buildings in every village/town in nottinghamshire (still trying to find it on my untidy bookshelves :-) Which I was going to use

Enchufla Con Clave (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

22:03:46, 27 December 2017 review of submission by 174.6.100.237

• 174.6.100.237 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sebastien Sirois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While I understand some of the comments re: puffery, some of the stuff IS sourced - "Neon Buddha’s ethical work standards, and continuing education programs are fundamental values to Sebastien" is mentioned in the two french language articles written about him as well as the ancillary articles about his co-founder. Offices in various locations would keep a chairman on the go - do addresses need to be included? "Sharing dad's passion for adventure" is a fair comment and will be edited in re-submission but just curious.

Re: Notability, being the founder and chairman of a company that does 50-70 million dollars a year in revenue isn't notable? Company is privately held so those figures would HAVE to be published by Pure&Co, violating the rule on sources not being by the subject. The article was modeled after Chip Wilson's wiki entry, which is somewhat promotional in its tone. Just wondering what needs to be done, specifically. Totally get it's supposed to be encyclopedic and will alter tone, like I said, was modeled after another Vancouver-based designer.

Would it be better to create a page for the company first?

Sorry if I'm being annoying, just wondering because it's been rejected three times for varying reasons.

First off, you're not being annoying. You've a perfect right to ask for a rationale for my rejecting it, and I'm happy to provide same. And to get my CoI on the table, I should say I strongly oppose paid editing. I think it is inimical to the ethos of this place. That said, it's not banned, although you should declare your CoI if you have one, so what can be done to get the article into mainspace? I think it needs two things - if he is notable, given the scale of his enterprise, there should be sufficient, reliable, independent sources which attest to his notability. You currently have 5. The Chip Wilson article has 36. And they are of better quality; Forbes, The Vancouver Sun, CBS, Bloomberg etc. Your main source, Le Soleil (Quebec) is fine. But it's one source. Elle works and he gets a decent amount of coverage in the article. St Catherine's Standard looks ok, but Sirios gets one line, it's much more focussed on Cooney/Passero. Soleil as before. Your fifth, Today, doesn't fill me with confidence, as it's basically an advertising sheet [2]. And the article itself gives a single line to Sirois. In short, four sources, of which two give Sirios one line each. That's not enough to establish Notability. And a quick Google doesn't give me much more. Being rich doesn't infer Notability - the world's got a lot of rich people - and the coverage I can see suggests he isn't by the Wikipedia criteria.

But , assuming you can find the sources, the other thing is to tone down the Puff. You're right, it's not too strong - I've seen a lot worse - but I'm pretty sure Bill Gates is busy and his article doesn't say he's "always on the go". And he's not called Bill in his article either. Or referred to as "dad". And his article's got 165 cites. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sebastien Sirois

Sorry, I thought I was logged in, I have declared my conflict on my user profile. Thank you for your help, will continue sourcing and editing and then re-submit. Will alter tone, specifically I assume you mean to refer to him by his last name as well as leaving out stuff like being on the go. You're 100% right re: Mr. Gates.

Cheers, S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scurrie90 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Aberfan

Hi KJP, and a very warm happy new year to you. A few months ago you were kind enough to comment on the PR for the Aberfan disaster. After a slight delay to allow some of the images to become PD, the article is now at FAC. Any further comments would be most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat And all best wishes for 2018 to you to. I shall certainly get over to Aberfan as soon as work permits! KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you KJP1 for your honest opinion and willingness to help. I am a new editor and I thought national news papers were credible references. I will remove Pindula content. Can you name any sources you consider credible. I will change the tone of the article but I thought it was neutral. Thank you again. Jakelewis2 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @KJP1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelewis2 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 22:39:43, 6 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Topogiallo

• Topogiallo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:SPC5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear KJP1,

Honestly speaking, I do not fully understand your comment. Wikipedia is full of articles written in such way with even less details: simply remaining on the MCU field, one example is V850. Another one is MPC5xx.

So, if my article is so poor, then can you please help me to understand how to improve?

Thank you.

Topogiallo (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, that Wikipedia may already have some poor quality articles is no reason at all to allow another to get through. The reasons why your article is poor are pretty simple:

• it is basically an advertisement for your product, rather than a neutral encyclopedia article;
• it is very poorly sourced. Four of the sources are to your own sites, and one is to a site that anyone can post on. There are no reliable, independent sources, which are the most basic requirement for Wikipedia articles.

Can I ask you a couple of questions:

• Why do you want the article on Wikipedia?
• Do you have a connection to the company that produces the product, and if so, what is the nature of the connection and why have you not declared it as a Conflict of interest?

Regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Epistocracy article

Hi KJP1,

thank you for your comment on my first article. I updated the Criticism section which was definitely very essay-like. I also changed one paragraph in Characteristics section and got rid of phrases like "According to <an author>, ...".

Could you please give me some examples where my article is still written rather as an essay? I admit that I was inspired a lot by the sources I was using as I have a little experience with writing similar articles. Maybe you meant phrases with "may", "could", "would", etc., but to be honest, I don't know how to change them since they are used in my sources as well.

Regards, Pnevyk (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have another look. But it won't be today I'm afraid. KJP1 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A small token for a big contribution

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you, KJP1, for getting involved at Articles for creation and helping whittle down the backlog. Your diligent reviewing is recognized and greatly appreciated! --Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

20:03:54, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Lloan

• Lloan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fit Body Boot Camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I feel like this article is being thrown aside and not given proper attention because it's an article for a company. According to the General notability guideline, this article has sufficient coverage. I appreciate your opinion in regards to the notability, but according to WIKI standars, it meets them. It has significant coverage, I used reliable sources, cited secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Similar companies like OrangeTheory Fitness have an article, the difference being that their article actually sounds like an advertisement. Please let me know what sources you feel are not worthy of use on Wiki or which sections of the article sound like an advertisement. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloan (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Lloan - Hello Lloan, good to hear from you. So, taking it in order. You think the article subject is notable, I don't. Nor did the two other editors who previously declined it. It is an article about a fitness company, of which there are literally thousands, almost all of which will not be notable in Wikipedia's terms. We'll just have to disagree on this. Next, the sources. There's not one that is strong, in terms of quality, and they give you little more than one-line mentions, or what appear to be PR-placed articles. Third, OrangeTheory Fitness has an article so you should have. This is not a strong argument. Wikipedia's a dynamic place and articles that make it to main space are often subsequently tagged or deleted. The one you cite is currently tagged multiple times for citation weaknesses. Just because there's already a poor article in your topic area on here is no reason at all to accept another. Lastly, "which sections of the article sound like an advertisement?" The answer is the entire article, because it is an advertisement. Let me ask you a question: why do you want the article in Wikipedia? It's the only article you've contributed to and it's about your employer, as you've properly declared. What's the motivation for having it? To contribute to the sum of freely-available human knowledge? Or to plug your business? All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 20:05:49, 11 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Conscientious Academic

• Conscientious Academic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Colin Robertson (Millennial Woes) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi KJP1, I would like to address your point made about my Wikipedia page about Millennial Woes (your comment below)

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

I completely agree with you on this. The problem is, given that this is individual is a politically contentious figure who is up against the entire media establishment (as his profile itself implies), there ARE no published, reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject. What there we do have in the media, are attempts to smear the subject with epithets such as White Supremacist, Anti-Semite and Nazi, while the individual concerned has no way to address these except his own YouTube channel. I see that Colin's ideological enemies have realised that Wikipedia was an unconquered space for them to spread their political bias, and have managed to have a page published about him where I failed.

Here is the subject's Wikipedia page, entered hurriedly by people who clearly wish to misrepresent him, who ironically created and got their page approved weeks after I created my page about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennial_Woes

Their "published, reliable secondary sources" include blogs like Salon.com and the Huffington Post. They also managed to invalidate any claim to the validity of the subject's views by ensuring that Wikipedia is subverted by own epistemological mischief, with a link to the ridiculously partisan "White Genocide Conspiracy Theory" page, a page which by its existence implies the validity of the topic (i.e. that this is indeed a conspiracy theory), and which is full of such fallacies that whoever approved this page should not be working at Wiki.

We are now entering a situation in which things are deemed to exist or be true based on how these assertions can be referenced, but when ideological opponents of the current system do not have "reliable" contemporaneous sources because social validation is only given to outlets which support the reigning ideology, then Wikipedia is entering dangerous territory of political partisanship. It becomes s self-referencing tissue of deliberately manufactured misinformation, subverted by a minority of determined individuals with an agenda. The world's most famous librarian, Jorge Luis Borges, satirized such a situation in his fable "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", in which a group of determined intellectuals worked to hoax a fake universe into the annals of accepted truth via means of cross referenced encyclopaedia entries, in which every aspect of this fictitious universe was documented with an encyclopaedia entry, each entry made valid by means of cross-referencing with other fake entries. I fear that we are entering into such territory with Wikipedia today. You are being lulled into deception by hoaxers, who are using their discredited Far Left "references" of interest groups, NGOs, partisan newspapers and blogs (on the page in question, these include the SPLC, the HuffPo, Hope Not Hate, Right Wing Watch and Searchlight) to confect a sense of credibility and "truth" to gullible Wikipedia readers.

As for some of the basic facts about the subject on his Wikipedia page, there are quantifiable errors here, as there are errors in the grammar and punctuation, but I see that these have been allowed to stand, given that the writer is assumed to be correct.

I tried to create this page for Millennial Woes as a bit of an experiment. I am a friend of his, something I'm sure I stated when I made the draft (I think there was a box to tick), hence my first-hand knowledge of the subject. I absolutely stand by elements of your second point, which is that language I have used may be seen to be biased to the subject. I did this to see what would get through, knowing that my page would be quickly edited by his ideological enemies. I have used Wikipedia heavily in the past, I have donated several times, and I have also had my own work used as a reference for a page which is wonderful in its accuracy and detail (as are many pages on Wikipedia). But I fear that unless Wikipedia gets to grips with this situation of ideology, the site will eventually become a parody of itself, and will lose credibility among a growing contingent of people, especially the young, who understand the ideological waters that they are being forced to swim in. That Wikipedia did not to stop this happening would be a great pity.

Conscientious Academic (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Conscientious Academic - I appreciate your response, but I don't actually think you are asking for any assistance. You're expressing a view, which is fine, but with which I don't agree. Regards, KJP1 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Swami Smaranananda

Hi there,

Just noticed that you rejected Draft:Swami_Smaranananda as not noteworthy.

You state, "Comment: There is only one source, and that's to his own writings. I'm afraid, as the previous reviewer indicated, this doesn't establish Notability."

I think you must have missed it: the opening sentence has five separate references! Please have another look: there are five references to independent news articles in major internationally recognized newspapers.

I request you to reverse your decision and accept the article as noteworthy.

Thanks and best wishes, Devadaru (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

ps: I admit it's still a stub article, but of a noteworthy subject, and I'm sure the article will improve with time. Thanks, Devadaru (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Devadaru Hum - rather odd. I am pretty certain when I reviewed it the only source was his own writings, and the translation of the same. I see others have been added subsequently. However, if I missed any originally, my apologies and I'll certainly have another look. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, KJP1. Sorry to see that you don't agree with notability; I am frankly surprised and disappointed.

I would point out that he is the 16th president of an internationally active and well-known organization, which is very frequently in the news, at least the Indian press. (Though maybe the Wiki article isn't that great, but ask any Indian person known to you; they will almost surely know of the Ramakrishna Mission.)

This looks like a case of non-Indians not recognizing the notability of an Indian subject.

I would also point out that he is the 16th president of the Mission, and there is an article for each of the previous fifteen presidents.

But I don't expect you to change your mind; a perusal of your talk page shows that once your mind is made up, it generally doesn't change. I guess we'll try again later, trusting that we'll find a more sympathetic reviewer, and also more material.

Best wishes,

Devadaru (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me add, I agree that if he weren't the president of the Ramakrishna Mission, he wouldn't meet notability. But the Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission are so well-known and notable in India, that the president of the organization by virtue of his being the president of it is also notable, just as the president of, say, the UN would be considered notable. Thanks and happy editing,

Devadaru (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Devadaru - replied on editor's Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

KJP1, many thanks.

I'd like to mention that had the article been immediately accepted, it would have been much poorer than it is now; the editors working on it were forced to source it more thoroughly and find more material, which has resulted in a better article (though still a kind of "baby" of course, which will need to be expanded in time). I appreciate your committment to a better Wikipedia. Devadaru (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

08:38:10, 14 January 2018 review of submission by 79modsiw

• 79modsiw (talk · contribs)
  • User:79modsiw/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you KJP1 for your comment. The article is rather a biography. Does it not meet that standards? What do you suggest? Shall I add content to the page Ambazonia instead? Thank you. 79modsiw (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

79modsiw - I've two major concerns. First, if you are connected to the article subject, or indeed are the subject, you shouldn't be writing the article as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Second, Wikipedia isn't a place to fight campaigns. We write Neutral articles as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We don't argue for a cause as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. As I read them, both this article and the related article on Ambazonia are doing just that. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:13:52, 14 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Sayedminhal

• Sayedminhal (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kaleem Haider Sharar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding Draft Kaleem Haider Sharar, he was a very popular poet of urdu language. The reference to the couplet of his poetry is given in the article in support of my viewpoint, because I feel his poetry are inclined to Extreme Stubbornness. You can find a list of his poetry at

1) https://www.rekhta.org/poets/kaleem-haider-sharar (in Roman Urdu Transcript) 2) http://pagalshayari.com/poet/kaleem-haider-sharar/sher/english Sayedminhal (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sayedminhal: - Thanks for the message. It's fine to include it in the article, but what references are supposed to do is support statements made in the article and allow readers to verify them. So, if we look at the article on Urdu poetry, you'll see the statements are supported by inline references. That's what your draft needs. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@KJP - In support of the claim that he was a "Rekhta" style poet I have added a Website which is most popular for Rekhta Poets. Ref no. [1]

I have also found his biography in one of the book of biographies written by Nusrat, Khaliquuzzaman. I have added in the refrence [2] in my draft edit

Would be sufficient for notability and verifiability, I hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayedminhal (talk • contribs) 08:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look later. KJP1 (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had another look, but I'm afraid I'd decline again. You now have three sources - two of which are links to his poetry. Source 2, alone, is very unlikely to provide the significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources that is needed to demonstrate Notability. KJP1 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: Thanks for revisiting.

The reference #1 on the article is from a website of poetry collections and is a third party, not my/his own website. I can tell you about this website: it is, it collects poetries of different poets, (written in rekhta style/form) and posts under their chapters of poets. You may find about other poets as well on this site. The reference #2 is book of biography Compiled in 2. Volumes written by someone else the book can be found in Library of Congress. I had another book in which I read about Sharar but at the moment I am not able to recollect the name of the another book, will try to find it by this end of the week and post update. If that doesn't suffice, how does the "global" encyclopaedia assert for notability and verification? Sayedminhal (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sayedminhal - I'm afraid I can't add much to what I've already said. You still only have two sources; one (Cites 1 and 3) are links to his poetry, and one to a biography in Urdu. 1 and 3 show he wrote poetry, but don't in my view demonstrate Notability. 2 might, but it is only a single source. I've done a Google search, but can't find anything that you haven't already got, except his Facebook page which won't do. To me, the fact that there isn't significant coverage demonstrates that he is not Notable. Sorry. By the way, thanks for the mail but I prefer to keep Wikipedia discussions on Wikipedia. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: For that reason, if your point is: Cite 1 & 3 are links to his poetry and by that you mean he was just a poet no notability can be ascertained. My argument if someone refer me "Ulysses" by James Joyce, "Odyssey" by Homer and "Prometheus" by Goethe are just prose writings by some writers and no notability can be ascertained. I guess I would be fair to say that in the same context as you have for my subject "Late Kaleem Haider Sharar". And I am sorry for unintentionally sending the email by software I got this option because I read your comment in my inbox itself.

Sayedminhal - But it you have a look at those articles, you can see what I mean;

• James Joyce - 90 cites,
• Homer - 65 cites,
• Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - 72 cites.

None of them do just list a poem/book that they wrote. They have a wide range of Reliable sources to desmonstrate Notability. No worries re. the email. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 -

@KJP1: I am an ardent reader of history, philosophy and literature on various mediums, Wikipedia being one of it.

Here the question is valuable contribution to literature not how many cities the Laurette has visited.

Sharar was also invited to read his poetry in Mushairas held in different cities of India, say for mention Bhopal, Nagpur, Lucknow, Kanpur etc, by various litrary organisation and forums, while he was a resident of Mumbai.

He was also a regularly published Laurette for Urdu Language magazines and periodicals, such as Shair from Uttar Pradesh, Aajkal from Delhi, Suhail from Patna to name a few. Iam trying to get copies of them.

Further he enjoyed the readership of Ghazal sections in various daily news papers accross India and Pakistan. Namely Urdutimes - Mumbai, Inquilaab Mumbai which I have read myself

He has also written drama, criticism and prose which are not available at the moment.

These are his contribution to urdu literature.

I hope you re-consider

Sayedminhal - I didn't say cities, I said cites. Meaning references. And they're the indicators of Notability, and the means by which articles can be Verified. Without them, you don't have a suitable article. KJP1 (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - :@KJP1: my bad, I overlooked that word.

Although, by my previous comment what is your opinion, how many citations would I need to provide for this Afc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayedminhal (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: KJP1, I have added a news paper article citation to my draft article regarding Sharar's school life.
The journalist was his school mate and he mentions his friendship and his childhood poetry in the article which he wrote in "The Inquilab" daily newspaper of Mumbai dated 30 August 2001

Draft of Palazzetto Albertoni Spinola

Hi KJP1, i see your comment concerning our draft of Palazzo Albertoni Spinola. I don't understand exactly what you mean when you say "Plainly Notable. But sadly lacking in inline citations." As you can see the are 9 very big and important citations (notes) online but maybe i'm making a mistake cuase you mean something else. Would you mind suggest me what i have to do? Thanks --Wikipeder74 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Wikipeder74

Wikipeder74 - Hi, thanks for the note. I think there may be some confusion between references, which support the information in the text, and footnotes, which give additional information. I'm not sure I know what you Notes section is. First, can it be translated from the Italian? That will help. Second, if you have a look at one I've worked on here, Cragside, you might see what I mean. I've a Footnotes section and a References section. But you'll also see I've got about 125 references. You need a lot for an article of this size. Hope that helps. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - Thanks for your notice. If you see for example Palazzo Vecchio, which is one of the most important historical building in Italy, you will notice that NOTES are same like on my draft. Maybe you're right, it is better to translate the note but most of them are in citations on Italian language of that period (1600-1700). Thanks a lot for your suggestions. --Wikipeder74 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Wikipeder74

Wikipeder74 - I take your point but, in my view, Palazzo Vecchio is also very under-sourced. It's a great article in terms of content, but 11 sources for the whole thing! Maybe, the Italian Wikipedia operates to different requirements, but have a look at, say, Windsor Castle. As important in England as Vecchio is in Italy, and with 251 references. And a substantial Bibliography. Vecchio has two reference books given. To my mind, that's not nearly enough, given the importance of the building. KJP1 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

19:50:00, 14 January 2018 review of submission by Esme Shepherd

• Esme Shepherd (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kishen Kower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Esme Shepherd (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC) No point in a re-review at this time but:

• A: I have copied the style of many, many articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how I should change it. Except that I can see my article is too long and I have repeated the story too many times. I need to cut it down to one history that accesses all the sources.
• B: I'm not sure you have read my article, as the subject is patently obvious.
• C: As for notability, there is a plethora of trivia on Wikipedia - how did it get there? If a princess making the ultimate sacrifice is not notable then we live in a very sad age indeed. (Oh, no - an opinion!) Actually, as it involves the premier royal line in India, it must be of great interest to Indians, if not to yourself. Moreover, it would make a powerful storyline for a film.
• D: My one and only opinion in the text has been now removed and my text is entirely neutral in every respect, so I don't understand your criticism on that score at all. Are you being serious?
• E: 2015 is obviously too long ago. True, my sources are mostly from the period following the event in question but that means they are far more reliable and don't include analysis, which modern sources invariably do. (I'm told to avoid analysis like the plague. That is why I have analysed nothing but merely set out the facts.)

Some further feedback would be useful because I might want to look at other subjects that are not yet covered by Wikipedia.

Esme Shepherd - Hi, thanks for getting back to me. Of course, I'm very happy to give further feedback which I hope will be of some use.

A - the article's not too long. There are many much longer on here, including some I've written.

B - I think it is important that one knows what the article's about from the get-go. Take the featured article on today's front page, California State Route 94. This starts "State Route 94 (SR 94) is a highway in the U.S. state of California that is 63.324 miles (101.910 km) long." So, in the first sentence, I know it's a road, in California, and it's long. In Draft:Kishen Kower, it takes me to the second paragraph, before I'm told she's an Indian princess. In the first paragraph, she could be a person, a place, a god....That's what I meant when I said the subject wasn't clear.

C - Notability is key on Wiki, it's how we decide to have, or not to have, articles. You're right that there is a lot of trivia on here, but that's not a good argument to add to it. But see below...

D - I think the article is pretty neutral now although I'd give inline sources for statements like "a most reprehensible character, whose most atrocious act..."

E - There's nothing wrong with old sources, I wrote an article that drew heavily on a text of 1804, but if you haven't got any modern sources, that might suggest the topic isn't particularly Notable as it hasn't attracted any interest from modern scholars. Alexander the Great has some very old sources, but also some very modern ones, as he remains a very Notable historical figure. I see you have now got a 2015 source in which is great.

In summary, I think your draft covers an interesting historical character and with work, both on the prose and the sourcing, it could certainly be an article. I wish you all the very best with it. KJP1 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Thank you, that is very helpful. I think the article will be useful because there is a resurgence of interest in Victorian culture. However, it clearly needs more work and clarification as you say. Incidentally, one of the sources I supply is from that 'reprehensible character', who obviously gives a differing view.

Cardiff Castle...

Hi! I'm going to do some work on the draft later; I was going to focus on cleaning some of the "history" versus "architecture" sections, and work a bit on the paragraph structure for the architecture section... Let me know what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hchc2009 - Sure, I'll have a look. KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

12:33:39, 15 January 2018 review of submission by WIKI REPORT

• WIKI REPORT (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Suman Kumar Mallick (Politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sir , I am a big supporter of the man whose biography I want to be added to Wikipedia. As,I am the son of this man ,I know a lot about him , therefore I want you to add this biopage to wikipedia

WIKI REPORT (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

WIKI REPORT - the fact that you are "a big supporter" and Suman Mallick's son are two very good reasons why you shouldn't be writing the article. Wikipedia articles are written from a Neutral point of view. Editors who are closely related to the subject of an article have a Conflict of interest meaning they can't write in a Neutral way and shouldn't be trying to. KJP1 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Matthijs Otterloo

Hi,

I see the page for Matthijs Otterloo has been rejected saying 'This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability', the person has been mentioned on the most mayor news sites of the netherlands with multiple articles, he's verified on Twitter and got quite an amount of followers on Instagram.

Could you please re-see your decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platflyer (talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Platflyer - Hi, I see you've resubmitted without waiting for feedback. So let's see what another reviewer says. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 01:38:04, 16 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Robertmooers

• Robertmooers (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Verisurf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello KJP1, Thank you for your recent review of my article submitted for posting. I have been trying to submit an article about model-based measurement software, but as hard as I try I can't seem to present the article neutral enough or with enough citations to warrant acceptance. In an effort to understand the necessary writing style I have looked at other companies within the space my article talks about. The each case I see less references and what appears to be non-neutral statements. Can you help me to understand how these articles were approved for posting? [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]

I appreciate any feedback or direction you can provide.

Thank you - Robert Robertmooers (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Robertmooers - Hi Robert, thanks for getting back to me. The argument that an article should be accepted because another similar article is already on Wikipedia, is used a lot. Of the three you cite, I would also have Declined the first two had I seen them at AfC, for the same reasons as I declined yours. Such sourcing as they've got doesn't support the claims made in the articles. I can't comment on the third, as that's on the German Wikipedia. But I'm afraid the fact that those articles were accepted, or were created directly, isn't a good argument to Accept yours. Have a look at this essay, which explains the issue well, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Individual merit. In a nutshell, that one weakly-sourced article on a related subject exists, is not a strong argument in favour of having another. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S., You've now had seven different editors look at this, and every one has Declined it, and broadly for the same reasons. It might be worth reflecting on this before resubmitting. KJP1 (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Too late - I see you've already resubmitted. KJP1 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

J. C. Hall

Thanks for your help there. Still unsure after years of small wikipedia edits if this is even the way to thank. Will look carefully at your comments. Unable to find clearly usable photo of Hall but will search on. Timbow001 (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A question: there are at least three J C Hall pages on wikipedia: Poet, Canadian writer and founder of Hallmark Cards. also dozens of John Hall pages, including one John Hall (poet) (1627–1656). what's the best way to handle this? Does it require a disambiguation page? Are there guidelines? Timbow001 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone named "John Hall" should be added to John Hall. Anyone else is fair game (though they could probably be added to Hall (surname)). I've added some hatnotes to the JC Hall pages though. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Pending AfC Submissions

I had a little play & put some projects eg "Wikiproject United Kingdom" & the list changes to only show submissions tagged "UK" but I've not had much time to play with it.— Rod ^talk 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

11:50:05, 17 January 2018 review of submission by Russellanderson

• Russellanderson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Samuel Boateng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, My article on Samuel Boateng has been declined due to the subject's notability. Samuel Boateng was the first Ghanaian to be on the UK’s biggest business show with over 6 million viewers each week, was nominated for a GUBA and Screen Nation Award and is recognised across the UK for the exceptional work he does for entrepreneurs through his Business and verified on Twitter. How much more ‘notable’ does he need to be!? There are other candidates from the same show who either left the process a lot earlier or are much less ‘notable’ yet their articles are published?? Russellanderson (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Russellanderson - Hi Russell, thanks for getting in touch. As requested, I've had another look at the article but I'm afraid it still isn't displaying Notability to me. In brief; he's described as a businessman, but his documented career is as an employee. The Spears reference gives his worth "in the thousands" - not an uncommon amount. The only reference to his business is his own website, which will not do as it is not an independent, third-party source. When you say he "is recognised across the UK for the exceptional work he does for entrepreneurs through his Business", it would be good to have a source that demonstrates this. I'm not seeing one in the article. Then his awards; nominations for two, not massively notable awards, neither of which he won. Lastly, a contestant on a gameshow, and again not a winning one. In my judgement, looking at Wikipedia:Notability (people), the criteria aren't met. On your last point, "other candidates have articles", this isn't actually a strong argument for inclusion. Have a look at this essay, which explains the issue well, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Individual merit. I appreciate you're unlikely to agree, although I'd point out that two other editors have also Declined the article, and it has previously been deleted from Wikipedia. That said, you can of course resubmit, although I'd recommend trying to improve the article with better sourcing that demonstrates "significant coverage". If you can't find this, it's probably because the article subject's not Notable. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Aryeh Gelblum

What makes you think the current sources are weak? Can you please be specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elirang (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Elirang - Hi Elirang, Thanks for getting back. I didn't say that the current sources were weak, I said that it would require strong sourcing throughout. I count eight short paragraphs, which would be better merged by the way, without any sources at all. Most importantly, the controversial, Controversial writings section has three, of which two only support the lengthy Gelblum quotes. Given the obviously racist content, I think more sourcing is necessary. As an example, the single counter-view that you give is unsourced. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)