Talk:Chuck DeVore

File:Schwarzenegger_promoting_Chuck_DeVore.JPG may be deleted
I have tagged File:Schwarzenegger_promoting_Chuck_DeVore.JPG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. -- Chris  00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

tag
(This article or section is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject)

There is no talk on this page about why this tag was added. Deleted till the tagger talks here. Telecine Guy 08:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look in the article history, the tag is fitting. Hekerui (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, here goes.

I came to this article, and the first thing I thought when I started reading it was, this sounds like an advertisement.

I am not qualified to comment on the accuracy of the article (probably OK), and the quality of the writing is good, although a bit stilted.

I am qualified to judge the tone, the style, and the impression that the article gives. And like I said, it sounds 100% like it was written by a copy-writer for an advertising agency.

If I had the necessary knowledge I'd try rewriting the article myself, but I know nothing about Mr. DeVore.

In my opinion, until some independent knowledgeable Wikipedians can be bothered to rewrite this article, the "autobiography" tag should remain. And look, it isn't necessarily negative to have that tag on an article, it's not something to be ashamed of.

OK?

--RenniePet (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He is running against Barbara Boxer. In in reading her post the tone reads the same. Compare the two and tell me what you find different?

Life Family Bills Postions

Telecine Guy 05:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to be more active on Wikipedia. Now it is just a very minor hobby for me, and I am not interested in getting involved in a dispute. Nor do I have any authority here. My restoring the autobiography tag was due to a very strong impression that hit me when I started reading the article, and then I looked at the history and saw that the article had been tagged and then un-tagged.
 * What I can remember from back when I was more active is that disputes should be referred to the more experienced Wikipedians. There is some kind of dispute resolution mechanism. If you wish, I'll post a message on the User talk:Hekerui page and ask him/her if he/she is willing to take action on it.
 * --RenniePet (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag requires at least some proof that the subject wrote the article, or that it was based on something the subject wrote (or authorized be written), or that an editor closely related to the subject have edited the article. I'm not seeing any of that.


 * More to the point, I've edited the article to make it comply (fairly closely) to Wikipedia's standards for factual (WP:V) and neutral WP:NPOV) language. So I'm removing the tag.  (I'm not sure if it's okay to repost it this talk page, so I'll let someone else research that.)  I ask that it not be put back given the current version of the article.  Tags on article pages should refer only to the current version; information about older versions belongs only on the talk/discussion page.


 * I also encourage anyone with problems with the current wording to (a) edit it to improve it (please explain in edit summary) or (b) post to this page (please be very specific, and please start a separate section). -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 19:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In my previous comments here I'd used the terms "independent knowledgeable Wikipedians" and "more experienced Wikipedians", and lo and behold, that's what has now happened. :-)


 * > The tag requires at least some proof that the subject wrote the article...


 * Actually, if you look at the history of this article, about 50% of the editings are done by a user with ID user:Chuckdevore. Not that it matters now...


 * --RenniePet (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As stated before, a look in the article history shows that it's an autobiography, and the rather minor recent edits don't change that. Hekerui (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing that the user. I will again state that any tags on the top of an article must refer to the current version.  So I hope we're all agreed that at some point, with enough edits by others, the tag should come off.


 * Thus the issue is what additional edits are needed to clean up the article? I've removed a bunch of military trivia (see next section) as a start.  So I'll ask, in accordance with WP:SOFIXIT, for other editors to either deal directly with (by editing), or point out, here any of the following:


 * Non-neutral wording
 * Excessive level of detail for any aspect of the biography
 * Missing information that is significant
 * Anything else that is inappropriate for a Wikipedia biography


 * I'm leaving the tag in place for the moment, but I think it's incumbent upon those who think it's still appropriate to either (a) fix the article so the tag can be removed, or (b) point to where the article needs further fixing.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One (hopefully final) comment on my part: When I restored that tag a month or so ago, it was based on a very strong feeling about the tone of the article - it really does sound like an advertisement. But that is a very subjective judgement, and maybe all articles about aspiring politicians have a tendency to sound like that. Anyway, I do not wish to get involved further, and I'm glad to see that a couple of much more experienced and knowledgeable Wikepedians are willing to work on improving the article - more power to you. --RenniePet (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is still slanted by the obvious COI and the tag should stay. Hekerui (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Again, I'm asking - this time in bold - that you be specific about wording or content that is slanted. None of us are mind-readers here. If you can't point to anything specific (I'm sure you can), then you're asking that other editors somehow fix things that only you can see as being problems, but won't share with anyone. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And, by the way, since DeVore added the information about his military medals, removing all that information might reduce any improper COI impact. Yet you're arguing (next section) that the information on military medals should stay in. I find that - well - unusual.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Military service
I looked at Stanley A. McChrystal as an example of an article where one would expect to find military-related information in the infobox. What I found was that only very important medals/awards are listed.

Accordingly, I'm removing all of the awards from the infobox, since they aren't particularly notable (basically, just about any U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel would expect to accumulate these over the years). And I'm removing all the other information about his Army experience because (a) what's important is covered in the article, and (b) that's *not* his profession; it's an additional, part-time job, from which he has now retired.

Here's what I removed:


 * profession         =Military officer
 * allegiance= United States of America
 * branch=[[Image:United States Department of the Army Seal.svg|25px]] United States Army
 * serviceyears=1983-2007
 * rank= [[Image:US-O5 insignia.svg|15px]] Lieutenant Colonel
 * commands=Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 640th Military Intelligence Battalion
 * unit= [[Image:40th Infantry Division SSI.svg|20px]] 40th Infantry Division (Mechanized)
 * awards= [[Image:Meritorious Svc Medal ribbon.jpg|30px]] Meritorious Service Medal [[Image:Army Commendation Medal ribbon.svg|30px]] Army Commendation Medal (2) [[Image:Army Achievement Medal ribbon.svg|30px]] Army Achievement Medal (3) Armed Forces Reserve Medal (2) with Mobilization device Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (6) Global War on Terrorism Service Medal [[Image:National Defense Service Medal ribbon.svg|30px]] National Defense Service Medal (2) Army Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon (2) Army Service Ribbon

I remind editors inclined to put the above back into the article that (a) per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; (b) per WP:NPOV, excessive weight and space is a violation of Wikipedia's rule regarding a neutral point of view; and (c) as pointed out above, the subject of the article contributed significantly to it, and so information added by him requires particular scrutiny. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The rationale for removal doesn't make sense, the content is very much part of his biography. The infobox was created so as to allow this information to be included. Hekerui (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hekerui - You've basically said "I'm putting it back because I think it should be put back." That isn't an explanation, it's a statement about what you're doing.


 * Consider this: DeVore's first pet was a dog named "Fido", which he got on his fifth birthday. Assuming that were true, would it belong in the Wikipedia biography?  Obviously not.  Why?  Because it's not important.  Nor is the street address where he grew up.  Or how old he was when he got his driver's license.


 * So, are DeVore's military awards important? I've made the case that they are not, because these are run-of-the-mill awards, many given for longevity and membership in a unit.  I've also pointed to a biography of a soldier who (I'm absolutely positive) has dozens of awards that aren't in his infobox, which contains only three, high-level awards.  You've offered absolutely no arguments that these types of awards are (a) important or (b) typically found in infoboxes in articles.


 * One way to prove the importance of these awards is if they are mentioned in several news stories. On the other hand, if the only documentation for these are DeVore's own websites/bios, that's an argument for their being of lesser important.


 * I repeat that WP:NOT and WP:NPOV are relevant here; I'd appreciate your thoughts on that, given that you're an experienced editor. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chuck DeVore. 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/20130413034645/http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm to http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chuck DeVore. 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/20090628172947/http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/016928.html to http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/016928.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120913074559/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/17/3984614/the-buzz-chuck-devore-heads-for.html to http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/17/3984614/the-buzz-chuck-devore-heads-for.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)