Talk:John Chittick

Issues
I believe most of the issues have been taken care of citation have been changed and the language has been channged how can the issues page be taken down 1) Why exactly has this been article been flagged as advertisement?


 * A lot. There's a whole lot of unduly positive language with meager sourcing. It's pervasive throughout the article. To give you an example, the first sentence describes him as "internationally recognized." Per WP:LEADCITE, this doesn't need to be sourced in the lead but it does need to be sourced in the body. In the body, the section called "Awards and Recognition" includes several links to TeenAIDS' website, which is directly prohibited by WP:ABOUTSELF. Independent sources are needed for these types of claims. And even with proper sourcing, "internationally recognized" is a peacock term that should be avoided. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * John was "internationally recognized" because he alone claimed to be. Jane Chittick (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

2) What Citation are incorrect?


 * Many of them. The purpose of the cite check tag is to encourage editors such as yourself to check them all. I'll start you off by checking the ones in the lead section:
 * : This source doesn't say anything about Global Aids Walks. It does talk about "World Walks," but are these the same thing? And it doesn't say he's known for them.
 * : Technically this doesn't say he provided outreach, it says he trained others to provide outreach. A minor point, but content in the lead should be scrupulously sourced.
 * : Doesn't say he lectured at Harvard Public Health, doesn't say he's spoken at multiple conferences. Might not be a reliable source, either.
 * : Doesn't say TeenAIDS is headquartered in Norfolk.
 * : Nothing about live public HIV testing, nothing about ending any stigma.
 * : Doesn't say he's known worldwide as "Dr. John," says he's known that way "by many"
 * Beware that in a biography of a living person such as this one, unsourced or poorly sourced material can be removed without warning. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * John never had "Global Aid Walks". Never.  My father gave him money to travel in different areas as he, too, was conned.  John was obese - diabetic and heart bypass.  He couldn't "walk" anywhere.  He had photos taken of him in various countries and pretended he was there for a "Walk".
 * TeenAIDS was centered in my parents house (111 Ross Street, Fitchburg MA) in the basement. There was no organization and no outreach/fundraisig (except for my father's money).  After my mother died in the indigent ward of Burbank Hospital, the house was foreclosed and John was finally evicted.  He and his partner went to Norfolk VA due to someone who gave them a room to live in.  He was indigent.
 * Jane Chittick Jane Chittick (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

3) Which sections need clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz14 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Every statement should have an inline citation to a reliable source, including each bullet in the "Awards and Recognition" and "Associations and Memberships" sections. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The awards are in those websites, is there any way to cite them by uploading them to Wikipedia itself? Jazz14 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Jazz14
 * Thats the thing you are saying the sources we are using are unreliable when they are links that show the actual awards Dr. John has won. How else can we cite them if by not using the website of his non profit that actually shows the real life proof? Jazz14 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Jazz14
 * As a general rule of thumb all citations should be in the form of inline footnotes. You can read Help:Footnotes if you need assistance creating them, or just copy what you did in the rest of the article. More importantly, however, all sources should comply with our verifiability policy, which says, among other things, that self-published sources cannot be used if they're unduly self-serving. Translation, if an organization received an award, you have to cite something other than the organization's own website or press release for that fact. Cite the awarding organization's website, or better yet, cite an independent secondary source such as a news story. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you are wasting your time trying to verify falsehoods. John was a legend in his own (sick) mind. Jane Chittick (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Jazz 14 is bogus - he and John were pals (to put politely) Jane Chittick (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * But that is the thing these awards are old, secondary sources are not available what the website shows are the awards themselves. How does that not count as proof? They literally are the awards that Dr. John has recevied


 * But i do understand that i must fix that actual citations, once again thank you for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz14 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 September 2014‎


 * Verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. If content isn't verifiable in accordance with policy, then it gets removed. I.e. if you can't find an independent source, then tough luck, it has to go. You may wish to read the illuminating essay called "Verifiability, not truth." If you are so wed to having this content in the article, then I feel compelled to repeat my prior question, do you have some sort of affiliation with Dr. Chittick or TA-PC? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Jazz 14 is most likely John's partner who was with him when he died on Ifaluk. Jane Chittick (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The link literally show the awards themselves, what better way to proof he won awards than by showing the awards themselves. How is not verifiable? Yes know Dr. Johnand im trying to help make his page more neutral which is why I am trying to make it as neutral as possible. But I cannot believe that his awards have to go down because no on else mentions them online. Jazz14 (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Now I see. That does pose an interesting question. However, one of the basic concepts here is that not everything that's verifiable is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article, i.e. something has to reach a certain minimal level of noteworthiness to be worthy of inclusion. Here we're talking about awards that are so minor that that no newspaper has written about them and the awarding organizations don't bother to publicize them. To me, that alone is a clear indication that they don't belong. Then consider the nature of the awards. One is awarded to alumni of an elementary school. One is awarded to alumni of an high school. But the fact that subject was high school valendictorian (something not asserted here) generally doesn't make it into Wikipedia. Then we have two letters of recognition from his alma mater awarded while he was there. These are really no more notable than being named to the school's Dean's List. These are really inappropriate for inclusion in our article (even if they were verifiable). And, in no way, shape, or form do they support the assertion that Chittick is "internationally recognized." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Applewild School (elementary) and Deerfield Academy (high school) did give John an award.... as they did to other alumni. It's like any school - someone's engaging, promotes himself and Voila! Jane Chittick (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * By the way, in what capacity do you know Dr. Chittick? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Jazz 14 - you are a fake. Jane Chittick (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Public HIV testing in the United States be cut down and merged into this article. The testing article has nothing that is independent of Chittick's programs. In the recent deletion discussion there was a broad push for a merge in the absence of a deletion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I oppose merger. And I even oppose discussion of merger here, for reason that the separation of the two articles was just tested within AFD just concluded, at Articles for deletion/Public HIV testing in the United States.  Editor Dr. Fleischman and I both participated, and merger was explicitly considered.  The outcome was "no consensus", with closing administrator suggesting that positive discussion/development on that article be continued at its Talk page.  This merger proposal, located over at Chittick article, is not that;  it is in effect another AFD discussion.  It was just discussed and the attention of the Wikipedia community was applied, fairly.  Let the article be...or better, do let's edit the other article to reduce arguable promotionality with respect to Chittick, per the closer's statement of consensus (which I agree with).  I further wonder if the immediate opening of this merger proposal here constitutes "forum-shopping", a wikipedia sin of sorts, though I am not  fully familiar with the policy and practices about that (i see there is info at wp:forumshop).  Anyhow, let's NOT discuss a merger proposal here;  rather let's work on that other article.
 * Also, despite my opposition to discussion, I do expect this merger discussion to continue, and believe that by regular process it could lead to effective deletion (redirection) of the other article, in contradiction to the AFD decision. So, i think it is appropriate to call attention to this new discussion, by posting to the Talk pages of every participant in the just-concluded AFD.  I don't want to be perceived as wp:canvassing, which is another sin.  But if all AFD participants are contacted, I think that is appropriate (it would not be selective, it would be open/transparent, it would have neutral message) and in accordance with proper practice.  I'll pause for possible comment here before doing those postings.  Dr. Fleischman, would you please instead withdraw this merger proposal, or otherwise comment?  I think that would be preferred, rather than rehashing the AFD discussion here.  Sincerely, -- do  ncr  am  22:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I come in peace. I was merely trying to follow Sandstein's suggestion and the WP:MERGE guideline; I wasn't attempting to start a brand new AfD. There is a huge difference between a merge and a delete; the delete led to no consensus, as some people preferred a merge, so the next step is to propose a merge. It's as simple as that. If you wish to put add an additional notice of this discussion to Talk:Public HIV testing in the United States, then by all means do so. And I wouldn't oppose you notifying all of the participants of the AfD (as long as you did it neutrally and to all of them, of course). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for your peaceful reply :). But, this is not what closer Sandstein suggested, in that this is not discussion at Talk:Public HIV testing in the United States.  Would you please be willing to close this proposal here, and discuss instead there?  Your point is, i believe, that either the Public HIV testing article needs to be changed to reduce coverage of Chittick, or it should be eliminated.  That is better held there, per closer suggestion.  Or, we can go through what I think amounts to a new AFD here, at the talk page for improving the Chittick article (not the right place to discuss improving the Public HIV testing article / won't be kept with the Public HIV testing article, assuming it is kept).  Could we do that? -- do  ncr  am  14:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My brother John was a con artist. My father (Stanley) supported him financially throughout his life.  When my father died, John moved in with my mother Barbara and went through her money, putting her to die in the indigent ward of Burbank Hospital, Fitchburg.  His "interest" in teen-age HIV prevention was nothing more than a predator's interest in teen boys - the poorer and more remote the better.  He lied and lied about his "accomplishments" - his participation at Harvard School of Public Health was no exception. In fact, besides being a liar, he was a moocher - all his life.  He loved one-up-manships.
 * John wrote this article himself which is why it's so flattering and false.
 * Jane Rogers Chittick Jane Chittick (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, anyhow, i edited the Public HIV testing in the United States article, and it is now inappropriate to consider merging it to here. It now covers (and is the redirect target for) National HIV Testing Day and more, and has less to do with Chittick. Copying some Chittick material from there to here is okay (and is appropriate to discuss here), and reducing some Chittick treatment there is okay (and should be discussed at its Talk page) but an outright merger is inappropriate. I'll watch here for a bit, but may then remove the merger proposal tags. -- do ncr  am  23:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)