Talk:Michael Balter

September 2020
I've reverted all but one of these edits. Rather than leave a very long edit summary, I'll explain why here:


 * Addition of Notability – Balter meets the WP:GNG. Awards etc. aren't relevant. Note that there are more sources available that I haven't incorporated into the article yet.
 * Addition of Primary sources – I've used primary sources in this article, yes, but appropriately: for uncontroversial biographical details about Balter's early career, and for his own response to the Science controversy. Statements that need to be are supported with a secondary source.
 * Removal of "controversial" – I would have thought the controversy is self-evident, because people don't publish articles when people leave a job uncontroversially. If it helps, here is a source about it that directly uses the word "controversial"
 * Delinking Brian Richmond – I don't know why you removed this, it's a perfectly valid red link.

Thanks for spotting the extra whitespace I inadvertently included. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You've provided zero evidence of notability except your assurance, and the article relies entirely upon piss-poor references. Remove the tags *after* you've fixed the issues. Your statement regarding the controversy is nonsense speculation; presuming and "editorializing", exactly as I said. If it's controversial, provide the reference that says so, otherwise I challenge it, and it gets removed in accordance with Wiki BLP policy for statements about living people that are not supported by reliable secondary references.
 * The additional article that you supplied uses the word "controversial" with respect to his *article*, not to his *firing*. I shouldn't have to explain this, but there is a difference between a controversial article and a controversial firing.  Bueller 007 (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that there's any issue to fix, . It's not up to me to provide "evidence" of notability – the sources are a simple google search away. If you could highlight some specific statements which you think are poorly sourced, I would be happy to discuss it, but drive-by tagging the whole article doesn't really get us anywhere.
 * Regarding "controversial", I am struggling to see your point of view here. I think it is an accurate summary of what the sources say. Are you looking for a direct quote that uses the word controversial? If so is there another word you feel is more accurate? Or are you contending that his firing, which was covered in multiple news sources, including one called "iMediaEthics", and led to a response from the publisher denying the accusations made there, was uncontroversial? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)