Talk:Jeffrey D. Sadow

Washington Post?
The article had in it a claim that the Washington Post had named Sadow's blog as one of the 'Best Political Blogs'. The source for this was Sadow's blog itself, which is not a reliable source for this kind of fact. However, a visit to the relevant Post page here gives a different picture. One section of the Post, 'The Fix', has asked for readers to comment on what they thought were good blogs, and put together, from those comments, what Post corresponent called "our list of the best political blogs in each of the 50 states." There were a lot of sites listed - five for Louisiana alone - and unlike in other states, Sadow's blog did not stand out from others amongst the readers. I think it is way too much of a stretch from here to being endorsed by the Post as a great blog site. It's a site amongst dozens, on a list pulled from reader's emails and twitters. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete?
It's years later and this issue remains unresolved. Moreover, it's ungrammatical as currently presented. The entire article appears to be nothing more than platform building. The guy is noteworthy only in his own mind. Not what Wikipedia is for. Economy1 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree. This is obviously a vanity page made by Sadow himself and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.149.48 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

CV
I have reluctantly deleted a chunk of academic background material. There are three reasons: first, much of it is non-notable - no one cares what courses an academic is teaching, and i doubt there are any sources for it other than his profile on his own uni's server - which doesn't establish notability. Second, the material was plagiarised, in the sense that it did not deviate significantly from the original text - it was close paraphrasing. Third, the subject of the article has come in and edited the section - openly, so i'm not suggesting inappropriate COI, though it would be better for a subject to raise any issues on the talk page rather than editing directly IMHO - but the edits aren't supported by any source. He may 'know' these things to be true, but if they are, how is it even the bio on his own uni's webpage isn't accurate? In light of all this, the material has been removed. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 01:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)