Talk:Charles L. Babcock

Notability
I'm sticking my neck out a bit here, moving this article from AfC, though the only news sources that talk about Babcock are a local news source, Highland Lakes Newspapers, and Texas Lawyer. Many of the other news sources (well, all the others that are accessible online) do not mention him at all, or name check him very briefly. Because the Oprah Winfrey case was last century, I'm presuming there may be pre-internet coverage too. Sionk (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Sionk, sorry I've been slow to respond to you, I was out of town and I'm just now getting caught up on Wikipedia. I certainly don't want you to think that I didn't see that you helped here.


 * Thank you very much for moving the draft live. I appreciate the time you spent reviewing it. I did want to reply to your comment here and the tags you left on the article.


 * First, I completely understand the issue with the Orphan tag and I'll look to see where on Wikipedia a link to this article could be placed.


 * Second, I wanted to ask you about the tag asking for additional citations. All of the information in this article is supported by the sources provided, so I don't quite feel that the tag is necessary. What information in the article do you feel is unsupported by the sources provided? I do see where you have added a tag and I wanted to let you know that the information about Texas Watch is verrified by the Texas Lawyer article, which is cited at the end of the sentence following.


 * Let me know your thoughts on this when you can. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the sourcing is still fairly unconvincing (very brief mentions) but I've removed the uncited claim and, hence, removed the "refimprove" template. Sionk (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick reply and for making the changes. Morzabeth (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphan tag
I've done a some looking around on Wikipedia to find places where we can link to this article to remove the Orphan tag and here are my suggestions.

Chip Babcock could be added to the following list articles: List of Brown University people (given that none of the categories apply to him specifically I would suggest he be added under the Unclassified section) and List of Boston University School of Law alumni (this list article is organized alphabetically).

I have also reviewed the Oprah Winfrey article and her lawsuit with the Amarillo cattlemen is discussed in the "The Oprah Effect" section. While Chip Babcock is not mentioned here by name, I believe he could be added in easily. If other editors think this is a good idea I'm happy to draft up a suggested revision.

Hope these suggestions are helpful. Looking forward to hearing what others think of this. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The list articles sound a good idea. Afterwards feel free to remove the "orphan" template. By all means add a mention about Babcock to the Oprah article, though be mindful this article will be heavily watched so you'll need to cite a reliable source that clearly links him to the court case. Sionk (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Sionk, I should have been clearer in my first message. I still want to avoid direct edits related to Chip Babcock, even if it is to other articles. Would you be willing to add him to the two list articles for now? You're right, the Oprah Winfrey article is quite possibly being monitored very closely, so I plan to reach out on the Talk page there and see if any editors are able to help. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to let any editors reading this know that Chip's name has now been added to the List of Boston University School of Law alumni article as well as the Oprah Winfrey article. He has not yet been added to the List of Brown University people article.
 * What do others think of removing the Orphan tag at this point? Morzabeth (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already removed it. As long as the article has been linked by one other article, you can remove it. For your COI, I've already done it for you. Feel free to ask me to consider implementing any other straightforward COI edits. Yours seem to be rather 'gnomish' (small) in nature, which is the kind of edits I like to patrol/make. Tutelary (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Morzabeth (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)