Talk:Curt Clawson

Mistaken identity of US officials

I restored this text since it's basically the only notable thing that Clawson has done since assuming office, with widespread media coverage. There are 4000 Google News hits for "curt clawson india". The quote could be trimmed down, though. 9kat (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The lack of anything notable doesn't mean we take a non-notable event and put it in. Number of WP:GHITS is meaningless. This is classic WP:RECENTISM. It's a minor event that will be completely out of the news cycle in a week, let alone being something notable enough in the long term to merit inclusion. Good gosh, he's only been in office a month. Concern over his lack of notable activity seems a little premature. Right now, this minor non-incident is being given undue weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur. There was ample mainstream media coverage demonstrating the notability of this incident. A few articles can be dismissed as non-notable, 4000 cannot. Gamaliel (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Even if we ignore the fact that 4000 truly isn't that big of a number when you look at how many carried the new Hobbit trailer, the number of hits is not relevant. If Justin Bieber gets a new hat, more than 4000 sources will cover it, but it still won't belong in his BLP because it's not notable. This is textbook recentism. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The news media appears to disagree with your assessment of this incident's notability, and as always we should model our coverage on that of reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• You (should) know better. Simply getting coverage today isn't notability. WP:NOTNEWS reminds us that "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." It also tells us that " While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. " there is no dispute that this minor incident is newsworthy. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Your continual parroting of a 4000 number won't make it more notable. It was news, not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• What sort of coverage would make it notable, in your opinion? Please be specific. Gamaliel (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's not about numbers or which specific source said it. It's about the enduring notability of the incident. Both of us have been around long enough to know that 2 weeks from now, almost no news sources will be talking about this. Compare that to the suggested 10 year test in the recentism essay. This won't be getting coverage in 10 weeks, let alone remembered in 10 years. When I sorted the coverage by date, only 5 were from today and 6 from yesterday (the 27th). Only 11 out of nearly 4000 were from the past 2 days. Everything else was all in the first 2 days. Already we see the coverage is dropping off fast. Instead of trying to be the newspaper that we're not supposed to be, how much would it truly hurt the project to wait for 2 weeks and see if there is still actually significant interest? I'm willing to bet that time will prove me correct, that this is a space filler that will quickly fall into obscurity. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask about the numbers. In any case, no incident receives the same amount of news coverage after it is no longer the news, no matter how notable the event. I'm willing to wait if there is some sort of definite criteria we're waiting to see that you will elaborate on, instead of waiting just to wait. Much of what you've said strikes me as an overly broad interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS that would prevent any coverage of current events. Wikipedia does cover news, we devote a quarter of the front page to it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Which part of WP:BLP do you think this violates, per your second revert? BLP says "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" actually suggests including specific criticism of Clawson over this incident, rather than just stating the facts as the article previously did. (Though I don't think we need to go that far, since the text already needed trimming.) Also, this occurred at the congressman's "debut", making it particularly notable. 9kat (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I already answered that. There is nothing balanced about including this material. The first claim was essentially that 'he hasn't done anything else', which is a poor reason to include it. Then you repeat this "debut" nonsense. If he tripped on the Capitol steps and knocked down 3 other congressmen, I bet some news outlets would mention it. That doesn't mean we include it. He made an error and we can see that 2 days after the fact, the media is forgetting it and moving on. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I simply said it's the only notable thing he's done; that's just a statement of fact, and wasn't particularly an argument for inclusion. My claim of notability is based on the amount and type of media coverage, and analysis of the incident. As far as the "debut" "nonsense", I am just reflecting sources: [1] [2]. If Clawson tripped on the Capitol steps, it would probably be the result of an accident rather than lack of preparation, and I doubt numerous media commentators would be analyzing your hypothetical tripping incident for racial bias. ([3] etc.) I also don't think you adequately justified using your interpretation of BLP to bypass 3RR over consensus at the time (and probably should've noted doing so on the talk page), although consensus is unclear now and thus in favor of BLP so it's no longer an issue. (Reading further, I see this has spilled over to BLP/N, so I'll leave it at that.) 9kat (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I made it clear that I saw a BLP issue. Nobody has disputed that the event happened, that it was a ridiculous error or anything like that. The dispute has been that it isn't notable at this point. If it blows up for some reason or becomes part of a larger pattern, then maybe. Right now no. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is already established as there are a substantial number of reliable sources that reported this incident, so there is no need to delete the content while this is debated. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As for the recentism and undue weight arguments, I don't see these as valid. This person has become notable because of this hilarious gaffe, and it will forever remain on his record. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, it won't "forever" be there. We already see that after the second day, the media has all but forgotten it. I think outside input is warranted. I'll post this to BLPN. And meeting BURDEN has no bearing on keeping it in place during discussion. BLP allows for removing contentious material during the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The media will not continue reporting on this, sure. But that does not mean that the incident is not biographically relevant. If we apply your argument, our biographies will be all stubs... - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Have you actually read recentism? This is textbook recentism. Anyway, I'm doing the BLPN entry now, we can continue it there. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome to post at BLP/N, just note that you are the only one in this discussion arguing for deletion, all others commenting here do not see the need to delete that content, so your idea to ask for "outside input" is quite close to forum shopping. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just because I'm the only one who has taken an interest in the article and doesn't fall into lockstep with you doesn't make me wrong. Your allegation of forum shopping is wrongheaded. Situations like this are exactly why those boards exist. If I went from one noticeboard to another, hoping for something different, that would be forum shopping. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And yes, I have read the essay WP:RECENTISM, and it does not apply here whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk)

• This is a textbook example of that essay. And again, there is a discussion at BLPN [4]. That's where this can continue. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I commented at the noticeboard, but to repeat here: I think including it at this time is undue weight. That could change if any reliable sources mention it in the future as having a source-indicated consequence. Todd Atkin's and Rick Perry's statements and errors are rightfully included because they had subsequent, source-indicated consequences. That's what we should report, if sources indicate there are any. If it becomes the only thing he's known for, and there's some subsequent dimming of his political prospects, then mention of it will be needed to give an encyclopedic explanation of his career. But I don't think we can know that until a source identifies the resultant damage, if any. It's better to wait at this point, rather than editors making unprovable predictions about how it will be or won't be significant in the future. I agree that this kind of event can be biographically relevant, but I don't think there's a way to determine if it will be biographically relevant, until we have a source that says it has been biographically relevant, if that makes sense to anyone. Gaffes and errors should certainly be included in a biography, but at the time sources indicate they were consequential gaffes. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. What is notable is that this was a junior member making a mistake on one of his first appearances, so it is consequential as it denotes how uninformed he was when taking part on that committee. The material is thus biographically relevant. Had he been a senior member of the US Congress, it would not have mattered as they make many gaffes in their careers, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but not in this case. Nothing UNDUE here, on the contrary. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• You are making Wikipedia a tabloid in this case. At this point, the matter is inconsequential. It was a minor mistake that is rapidly sliding into obscurity. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is that I don't see that sources treat it as consequential yet. Yes, it denotes he was uninformed, and yes, I can see how that could be seen as telling, but that's not the same as consequence, and that's not the same as a reliable source making that argument. I agree that it was a seriously stupid interaction, but it needs some reliable source that says it actually had impact on his biography, not just that it happened. On one end of the spectrum, if it gets him kicked off the committee, it clearly had a biographical impact. On the other hand, if sources medium-term treat it as showing up to work with egg on his tie, then it would be undue weight here. If there are sources that say this event casts serious questions about his overall competence and people take that argument seriously, then that is a legitimate arguable consequence. But the only sources I see, at this time, are people lightly and appropriately mocking him for, in the words of the person he was mistaken about, an "honest mistake". I am completely open-minded about including it if is shown to have any subsequent source-indicated affect on his career, regardless of whether the original event was innocuous or profoundly serious. Again, I currently don't find arguments by people who say it must be completely trivial, or people who say it's a profound smoking gun to be convincing. Speculation about whether this will be treated as completely trivial or deeply important in the future is completely pointless for all editors here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• And I'll point out that I've maintained all along that "not now" is where we are at. If, as you say, a pattern develops, like it has with Biden, then yes, this may be relevant. I suggested waiting a couple of weeks to either see that it gains traction or that it went away. If this is so notable, it'll still be there later on. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We could have an entire encyclopedia based on verbal gaffes by almost every living person. Unless there is some actual WEIGHT given by reliable secondary sources (other than campaign workers, brochures etc.) they do not belong in a BLP. "Silly Season" is bad enough without having this sort of stuff added to every person in office no matter their party or anything else. Collect (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that this was not your run-of-the-mill gaffe… As reported by reliable sources, including foreign press:

• WAPO not only was he not briefed (as he claimed), but he also failed to look at the witness list provided to him or even listen to the introduction of Biswal and Kumar. As a result, Clawson’s case of mistaken identity produced a cringe-worthy moment in race that was gobsmackingly bad — even for Congress.’ [5]

• BBC "It's extremely uncommon for foreign officials to testify before Congress under oath," he writes. "Even so, it's unclear if at any point Clawson realised his mistake, despite the existence of a witness list distributed to the various members detailing Biswal and Kumar's positions.” [6]

• The Atlantic’: Whiteness Is Still a Proxy for Being American: ’”It's worth noting how unlikely it is that he would have mistaken an Irish-American for a representative of the government of Ireland or a German-American for a representative of the government of Germany.” [7]

- Cwobeel (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Using descriptive phrases to fill space doesn't move this beyond run of the mill. Again, if this turns into a patter, like has been for Biden, then yes, it could take on some notoriety. As it stands, it's a single event that got some ink for a day or two and then went away. Move along, nothing to see here....at least not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• It's clear to me that the WP and Atlantic articles establish that this has real notability beyond being just an amusing blooper reel gaffe. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• It may be clear to you, but it's not clear to the 3 editors that don't see the notability. Fortunately, we're actually getting some additional input now. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Simmer down, chief. Take a cue from those other two editors about how to respond appropriately to those who disagree. Gamaliel (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Simmer down? I'm not sure if you're condescending or clueless. In either case, your little warning is not needed. I have responded appropriately to you and pointing out that others don't share your opinion about what is clear isn't uncivil. So keep trying to pretend otherwise or contribute meaningfully. It' your choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Your contribution was not meaningful in any way, it was just an excuse to snap at somebody who disagreed with you. Grow up. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your version of the events. So enlightening. And now that you've resorted to "grow up", I can see you've opted not to contribute meaningfully. Thanks for making your intentions clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Atlantic calls it "silly" and says There’s no point in continuing to ridicule Clawson. Everyone’s entitled to a dumb mistake. The BBC calls it a "howler". I am open to the idea that this event could possibly follow him around for life, thwarting him in a profound way, but I don't see the sources as currently treating it as a serious event or indicating any real-life consequence to anybody now. As I've said, if it has any source-noticed consequence it should be mentioned, regardless of whether anyone thinks the event is serious or not, but not if the news stories only treat it as a giggle moment. If a notable person wears a shockingly bad dress or some other embarrassing accident, it will be covered around the world, but it won't be encyclopedic unless the wearing of that dress has a consequent impact on actual people, whether the subject or others. If later there's a news report that some people were hesitant to contribute to a gaffe-making rookie, that's all it would take to arguably qualify, as it would show effect in his life that would need explaining in his biography. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

After seeing the snipping and lack of good faith by Niteshift36 (graciously redacted, thank you Gamaliel), I am out of here. I have no patience for that kind of behavior, and there are thousand of articles I can edit in a civil and constructive manner. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• There was no lack of good faith. Doesn't having to take a parting shot at someone really negate your attempt to appear to be civil or "above the fray"? (No need to answer, it's rhetorical.) Niteshift36 (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That is what I meant. No one needs that kind of rhetoric. Ciao bambino. - Cwobeel (talk)

• So you returned just to make another insult? Yeah, you're a shining example. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There may be no point in ridiculing Clawson for the mistake, but something doesn't have to be worth ridiculing to be included here. It seems clear that a great number of sources covered the incident, and talked about the incident as well. It is conceded here that there is no dispute about the factual nature of it. Per WP:BLP, articles should not be used to attack people, but it is very possible to mention things that may show someone in a negative light if it is properly sourced and properly written. That this article is rather short does present some issues - yet I think, it is possible to include a short, responsibly written, neutral mention of what happened within the article. Chester Lunt (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How to present neutrally

Were this to be covered (which I believe it should), the logical place might be under a new subheading "Tenure" under "U.S. House of Representatives." The question would then be, how should it be stated here, to be consistent with policies of neutrality and using reliable sources? Here is the opening sentence of an article by Politico: "A freshman lawmaker apologized Friday after mistaking two U.S. officials for Indian nationals" [8] I think this might be a good way to characterize it (some variation upon this central point). What do others think about this general idea? Chester Lunt (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Time has proven what I contended months ago. It was recentism. After that news cycle ended, the incident fell into obscurity. It wasn't notable then and the lack of coverage over the past months makes it even less notable. The enduring notability isn't there. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a contradiction here. When it was a current event, you argued we should not take the many news articles about it as evidence it is notable. Now that it is no longer a current event, you argue the lack of new news articles is evidence that it is not notable. As you have noted, Wikipedia is not a news site - editorial decisions should not be made strictly on what is being discussed in the news.

Unlike a news site, Wikipedia is not bound to the 24 hour news cycle. Encylopedias are exactly the place for recording history. As an encylopedia that is written "in real time," there is indeed a tendency to cover current events (per WP:RECENT) It gives the example of, in 2004, more editors would be contributing to the 2004 election article than the 2000, even though in the long arc of time these would be potentially viewed with equal attention later (you could go further even and argue 2000 would get more attention), and that a high amount of detail on both articles would be beneficial. It is worth noting, this is not to say that the 2004 election should not have been covered at all, or even to a great degree of detail. In that case, it actually is an argument for more attention being placed to the previous election as well.

It is possible for too much attention to be placed on current events - and examples are given where day by day timelines can be condensed into more concise entries. I think there is no need for a timeline here. It would also be inappropriate to include it in the first sentence, or first paragraphs, or assign too much importance to it in the greater scheme of things. We can't state that this has a great impact on him in the future, because this has yet to be seen. It would have been inappropriate to assume that because 99.9% of the coverage he recieved right after this incident was about the incident, that it deserves 99.9% of the articles focus. The inverse also would be inappropriate - to conclude because it received news coverage, it deserve no mention. It is possible to mention it in a neutral way, while citing the reliable sources which are found. Chester Lunt (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is no contradiction. The lack of continuing coverage demonstrates WP:RECENTISM and the lack of enduring notability. WP:NOTNEWS reminds us that "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." It also tells us that " While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. " Then, if you look at the suggested 10 year test in the essay on recentism, you see that this didn't pass the 10 week test. So far, the guy made a screw up. If it turns into a regular occurrence, like it is with Joe Biden, then maybe it will merit mention. Right now, it was a 36 hour blip in the press a few months ago that amounted to nothing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you that newsworthy events do not necessarily deserve inclusion. Someone might for instance, end up on a Dean's list or honor role - do they merit an article of their own? Someone might win a competition at a county fair, does that merit it? I think that if someone were to just mistake some US officials for Indian nationals, even if this somehow merited a mention in the press, this alone wouldn't necessarily mean that person should have their own article here. But in this case, the public figured involved is already a public figure. This incident isn't necessary to build the case for his notability.

Further, I believe you are using the 10 year test in a way that it is not intended. It asks as a thought experiment to consider what will be important in 10 years, when considering how much focus to place towards aspects of an article, as a warning towards assigning too much importance to something just because it is happening now. The 10 year test is more telling us how to present something, as opposed to whether to present something at all.

So how do we decide what merits inclusion? I think a few factors build the case here: he is a public figure, and member of the United States Government. The incident was while he was "on the clock" so to speak and in a public meeting which was documented. It was deemed notable enough by media outlets to garner coverage, and notable enough for him to personally respond and apologize. I think this merits a mention within the context of his tenure as congressman, which should definitely be expanded to include other events as well. Chester Lunt (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Back when this was actually still in the news, we discussed it. I took the issue to the BLPN. There was no consensus to include it. I don't see anything new in your reasoning and, in fact, I see the reasoning as less compelling since the incident did exactly what was predicted....be forgotten in a matter of days. Trying to "neutrally word" a non-notable event isn't helpful. Including this minor incident is, at this point, undue weight. As I've said, if it becomes a habit with him, like it has with Biden, then it might merit inclusion. Right now, it doesn't merit inclusion, regardless of wording. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A neutral presentation of the incident should be included. I don't see any emerging consensus for a complete suppression of this material. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: I was going through this article today and I'm curious as to why this incident is being totally excluded from the article. I agree that there should not be a whole section on it, but whats wrong with having a single line? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well, the reasons for excluding it have been explained above. Why should this very minor, passing incident be included? It dropped out of the 24 hour news cycle fast and remained gone. It was pure RECENTISM. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

And yet the article includes stuff like "He was named a "Purdue Old Master" in 2010 and received the Distinguished Alumni Award in 2014" which doesn't seem to have coverage. Even if he did receive it, it happened once and has dropped out of the news cycle. Why should this be included as well? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As for that incident, I did seem to find references to it later.

• [9] 25 September 2014 (reference in an Indian newspaper)
• [10] 15 January 2015
• [11] 20 June 2015

The event seems to have been referenced later as well --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Referenced isn't continuing coverage. There's a difference. And the Indian source was shortly after the incident. The other two are in the context of recapping the events of his first year, not because the incident merited further coverage on its own. An actual award is more notable than a speech faux pas that quickly passed into obscurity. I know there's not a lot to say about the guy, but trumping up some minor incident to fill space isn't the way to go either. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• No, I don't intent to trump up the event. But I think one line along with some of his other prominent newsworthy stuff could surely be mentioned. That wouldn't violate WP:UNDUE. Also, notability does not apply to article content (see WP:NNC). Content in a BLP is determined by due/undue weight. I personally am willing to let the award be, but I am just troubled well cited incidents are not reported while a single award gets so much weight. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why do Wikipedia editors forget that the word notability doesn't necessarily mean the notability guideline? I know that NNC doesn't apply to content, which is why I didn't link to WP:N. I'm using the actual word "notability". Simply getting coverage today isn't notability. WP:NOTNEWS reminds us that "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." It also tells us that "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. " There is no dispute that this minor incident is newsworthy. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Again, if you read WP:RECENTISM, this fits it very well. Why should the policy on NOTNEWS be ignored here? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Clawson delivered the Tea Party response to President Obama's State of the Union Address in 2015." This is news as well right? By your logic, this is recentism as well because I do not see continued coverage of this. So this should be deleted from the article as well? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• I do understand your point that it is not important to include every single news event in a BLP. However, the question remains - what should then be included? My take is that if the event spurred multiple editorials in reliable sources, it would be OK to include it (as long as WP:UNDUE is not violated). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Except that only 1 senator a year gets to deliver the response and many senators will make a speaking faux pas. If you are of an "either or" mindset, then I'd support removing the part about delivering the response more than adding this non-incident. To answer your question about what should be included.... reasonably significant events and things that have continuing coverage or enduring notability. Have you actually read RECENTISM? I think the 10 year test is a good one in this case. Seeing how this incident dropped off the radar as fast as it did and slipped into obscurity (except in a couple of articles recapping his first year), I can't see the enduring notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand the 10 year test. However, most news items (even if they are significant) are forgotten quite quickly. Once the window of coverage is over, the event is not going to be ever referenced on a mass scale. But does that diminish the significance? My personal opinion here is to check if small references to the event have been made over the years in other news/editorials/scholarly works. If indeed they have, I would recommend keeping it. I found more references to the event

• November 2015 (see [12]) in a research paper.
• 22 September 2014 editorial [13]
• March 2015 opinion in Huffington Post [14]
• 15 January 2015 [15]

The incident seems to have been referenced multiple times. The 10 year test suggests "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" I am not asking to devote more time/space to this incident than other topics in the article. I am just saying that this be included alongside some of his other contributions. The article which summarise his first year could be used as a reference. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Again..... 2 of the sources you keep using are a recap. Of course it will get mentioned, it's a review of the first year. The whole point of that recap is to review everything, not to continue covering it. Nothing new was said. You can't count it as continuing coverage. The Indian news source is an open letter to another person, not coverage of the event. It does mention the incident part way through, but starts the mention with "Just the other day he kept telling....", lending support to the position that this is really pretty close to the original event, at least in the authors mind. (it was only a few weeks afterward) That leaves you with a research paper. It's probably a RS and can be used to verify facts, but you can't call it continuing coverage because it's not coverage. The paper purposely finds examples of a specific type of event, making only a small number of events even eligible. Of course it will use one of the more recent ones. Do you have any real coverage that is more than a year from the event? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curt Clawson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140425081616/http://www.cla.purdue.edu/alumni/awards/distinguishedalumni/Recipients/Clawson.html to http://www.cla.purdue.edu/alumni/awards/distinguishedalumni/Recipients/Clawson.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)