Talk:John C. McAdams

Untitled old thread
Well. . . I would not in fact claim to be eminent. I do have 20 plus articles published in scholarly outlets -- including some in top political science journals, including five in the AJPS, and two in the Journal of Politics. Then there are a bunch of others in decent outlets. But this just makes me a journeyman political scientist, not "eminent."

My only real claim to fame is my JFK assassination web site. The current article (thanks to whoever did it) has three cites on that. Let me add one more:

“it appears to me that McAdams’s site is the premier JFK assassination Web site, clearly superior in depth and scholarship to that of his peers.” (Vince Bugliosi, in Reclaiming History. [on supplemental CD])

Note that I also have a book on the assassination coming out.

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Logic-claims-Conspiracy/dp/1597974897/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267298318&sr=1-1

And I also moderate Usenet group alt.assassination.jfk.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/news.htm

So while I don't claim to be "eminent" as an academic, I would claim to be at least somewhat important in the Internet discussion of JFK assassination issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk • contribs)

Somebody messed with the entry, inserting a link to a page claiming that Lee Oswald is in the doorway of the Depository at the time Kennedy was shot. All that has to do with me is that I have a page claiming he's not.

Somebody also inserted a section about my politics. It has a bunch of irrelevant stuff, one citation that does not check out, and another that's irrelevant. (John McAdams) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.198.73 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What is it specifically that is being challenged? The information conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding verifiability, neutrality, and sourcing. Location (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In the first place, the citation to the claim that I'm an outspoken conservative doesn't say that. Secondly, the citation to my blog is one article about my blog, on a somewhat arcane issue, when it should be simply a link to my blog, which people can look at and draw their own conclusions. (John McAdams) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.198.73 (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There was formatting issue that has been fixed; the "vocal conservative" comment now links to the appropriate newspaper article. The blog reference cites a secondary source mention of it since secondary sources are preferred over primary sources in Wikipedia. Location (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the citation to an article claiming it was Oswald in the doorway simply wants to argue about one rather arcane issue about the assassination. It implies that I work for the CIA, which in fact is libel (assuming anybody took it seriously). Look at the link, and you'll see it's to a kook site. (John McAdams) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.198.73 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed it. Location (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Conflict-Of-Interest editors/IPs
I've tried to get the listings up to date up above regarding the conflicts of interest for McAdams editing here, and it appears an IP related to him tried to edit the page directly in the past few days.

Anyone know if it's possible to get that list in a single box rather than requiring a box for each user? The template used seems to only accept one entry. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've merged the multiple boxes. I've also removed the last IP address as any connection to McAdams from that IP's single edit is speculative.  The other two are definitely him as he self-identified in edits.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked via GeoMapLookup and the 3rd seems to come from the same geographical location and ISP (wi.res.rr.com) as the 2nd. The first appears to resolve back to an actual Marquette University address & name. The edit summary also matches McAdams' writing style here. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also thanks for merging the boxes. I'm still wrapping my head around all the redundant and mostly redundant templates and options that seem to exist for the same functions but with different quirks and limitations. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Templates can be a pain. That's what happens when you have ten years of disorganized growth.  It's about time for a template standardization project, I think.


 * That's a lot to speculate about a single edit. Also, thousands of people attend or work at Marquette, and a Marquette affiliated person is more likely to be interested in an obscure article about a Marquette professor.  It's good to keep our rules about conflict of interest in mind, but if we get overenthusiastic, we are likely to violate our rules on outing or chase away innocent editors.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but we now have someone IP-hopping to try to re-add it... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears the IP-hopper may have descended into sockpuppetry. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Per this diff I am adding user Levazquez76 to the list of connected contributors. They appear to be referencing a personal communication with McAdams in their edit summary, making a claim that cannot be substantiated by sources and that directly contradicts the letter from Marquette, a source in this article. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How do I get myself removed from this list?Levazquez76 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed your user name per WP:AGF.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to delete references to my user name in this section?Levazquez76 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to 2602:252:D0C:B9F0:DDCF:C12D:B856:2E3D
Please do not continue edit warring any further. You appear to be attempting to make edits based on a personal blog, which is not allowed per wikipedia policy on self-published sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, WP:SELFPUB allows citation of his blog strictly for information about himself and his views, as long as it isn't quoted to excess per WP:UNDUE. I'm more concerned about him using it to state in Wikipedia's voice information about the actions of the graduate student, which is a violation of SELFPUB and WP:BLP.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean. His blog can't be a source for allegations about the grad student or the Marquette administrators, that's using a blog as a 3rd party source. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement not sourced
{request edit} remove "despite making written agreements with the University that he would not do so after the 2nd instance."

Career>3rd paragraph>3rd sentence

There is no evidence in either source 11 or 12 to back up the statement regarding a written agreement.

Source 12 (page 14) states McAdams "acknowledged" posting student names was a matter of concern. Acknowledging is not the same thing as making a written agreement.

Levazquez76 (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "You acknowledged at that time that publishing student names on the Internet was a matter of concern, but given your naming of Ms. Abbate that acknowledgment from 2011 appears to be without meaning or effect." - Marquette letter. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Right, I was just editing my post...but acknowledging is not the same as making a written agreement with the University. Levazquez76 (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And then how do you get from acknowledged, to written agreement, to would not do so again? I think it needs rewording, as it is a lot of assumptions that are not based on what is stated in the source. Levazquez76 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are not John McAdams, as you said on my talk page, why are you responding to the question as if you were?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm asking after having combed through the source letter trying to find any hint of what was stated as fact on the page. How is that responding as if I were? Check my IP address. I'm not sure how to prove it, but if you have a way for me to do that, let me know. Levazquez76 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm a she, not a he. You said for me to come here to post edit requests on the talk page and now you are criticizing my edits. Levazquez76 (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "I was just editing my post" does not refer to McAdams' blog? What does it refer to?   I am not criticizing your edits.  I am expressing confusion regarding your statements here.  You are welcome to post here, whoever you are, whatever you want to discuss.   Anyone is welcome to post here, including McAdams.    Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I apologize, I meant we cross-posted HERE. When Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz responded to me with the quote from the letter, I was editing my post HERE with that same quote. Levazquez76 (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the misunderstanding.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "In furtherance of the above, our Faculty Statutes expressly authorize the University to revoke tenure when circumstances arise from a faculty member's conduct which clearly and substantially fail to meet the standard of personal and professional excellence which generally characterizes University faculties," with the further requirement that "through this conduct a faculty member's value will probably be substantially impaired." Examples of conduct that will substantially impair the value or utility of a faculty member include: "serious instances of ... dishonorable, irresponsible, or incompetent conduct."
 * "Instead of listening to Marquette's repeated requests and cautions not to put student names on the Internet, you applied your own inconsistent rationalizations about whose privacy is entitled to protection. Based upon your years of Internet postings, you knew or should have known that your Internet story would result in vulgar, vile, and threatening communications to Ms. Abbate."
 * "...Again, the harmful consequences of your unilateral naming of students were pointed out. You acknowledged at that time that publishing student names on the Internet was a matter of concern, but given your naming of Ms. Abbate that acknowledgment from 2011 appears to be without meaning or effect...."
 * "With this latest example of unprofessional and irresponsible conduct we have no confidence that you will live up to any additional assurances on your part that you will take seriously your duties to respect and protect our students, including our graduate student instructors."


 * I think that about covers it. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Where in the above quotations does it state that he made a written agreement after the 2nd instance (of naming a student) with the University? I'm confused. Don't you need to have an actual statement to consider it a source? Not just something you infer? A tenure contract is not the same as what you are implying with this. Saying that a written agreement was made after the 2nd instance implies something entirely different. Levazquez76 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't believe the source is sufficient to back up the part about a "written agreement".   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"deliberately publishing students' names and information to target them for harassment"

Isn't this inflammatory, without a source that states this specifically? I see nothing in either source. Using the words "deliberately" and "target" seem reckless. Levazquez76 (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Hateful and threatening messages" to whom?
The article contains the following sentence: "The announcement triggered a barrage of hateful and threatening messages from McAdams's supporters.[16]" (I noticed it because it has been the subject of edit warring over the inclusion of "McAdams supporters".} The problem I have with the sentence is that it does not make clear who the messages were directed toward. I assumed they were directed toward the university administration, until I checked the source. It turns out they were actually directed toward one of the students that he had publicly identified on his website. I think that's important and should be made clear. Particularly because he is accused of "deliberately publishing students' names and information to target them for harassment". --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll work on updating it. I've found the actual University president remarks posted to Medium as well, will add as a source. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarified the language to indicate that they were directed at the grad student and at University officials - since many messages were directed at University officials as well, such as the one saying "The sooner dean Richard Holz resigns, and as penance for his sins, blows his useless brains out (after blowing s out for her), the better." Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's better. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I have not been "edit warring" here. "William Gosset" (contribs) appears to be yet another throwaway IP sockpuppet in the mix. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The childish ad hominem is unnecessary, "Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz". My (minor) edit removed what looks like unnecessary POV, which was explained as part of the revision. If you disagree, feel free to engage with my point in the Talk page. Please refrain from engaging in edit wars and excessive POV in your edits (and edit reversions), and I would encourage you to take a look at Wikipedia's rules regarding NPOV. Thanks. William Gosset (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "William Gosset", please address the likely COI issues first, I left you a note about the policies which you deleted from your talk page. I am guessing you are connected in some way to the subject of this article? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz", I am not connected to the article's subject. I'm assuming you are somehow?  If so, please disclose that fact, per Wikipedia rules on COI. William Gosset (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)