Talk:Nicholas De Genova

un/poorly sourced materials
Removed Historicist's edits which are unverifiable. Please refer to WP:V before adding material in the future. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * sigh the content that User:GrizzledOldMan removed contianed discussions of de Genova in the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Columbia Daily Spectator.  Of course it can be verified.Historicist (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed a part that was not cited at all - saying that he was listed in someone's book as one of the "101 Most Dangerous Academics in America", and the purported reason why he was, would need a source other than the book itself. We can't attach that tag to all 101 academics; we need secondary sourcing to establish weight and relevance.  Incidentally, the citations are not complete or formatted properly.  Anyone who regularly edits articles needs to learn the, , , {{cite web},} and similar citation templates.  Without a full citation, and in this case some link or proof, I don't think we can accept on faith that the source is reliable or says what it is claimed to say. Wikidemon (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicholas de Genova. 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/20160303172520/http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/20/herb_denenberg/doc4975a46fde30d964905359.txt to http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/20/herb_denenberg/doc4975a46fde30d964905359.txt

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) 15:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How current is currently?
The statement that De Genova was "currently" working on a memoir is based on an undated page on his own website. Setting aside for the moment whether his site is a valid source, I feel editors err when they put in articles vague words like currently, recently, now, etc. and leave them in for perpetuity. In this case, the line was added in July of 2009, and now, 11 years later, I find no such book that has been published. That's a current of very low amperage. This is not an attack on De Genova, as I'm much closer to his perspective than I am to those who do attack him. This is just about clarifying the article. Accordingly, I am changing that sentence. Dgndenver (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * seems reasonable - De Genova is one of those people that was sort of in the news 2000-2005 but is now a bit more of a footnote of history. Jjazz76 (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Balance and sources
The article needs overhauling. The page reads like coverage of the 'Million Mogadishus' incident with a little bit about De Genova himself. Lots of unsourced fact statements in the article that need backing up. Would also be good to actually outline his research and work more. I'm going to work on this now, but wanted to post here in case other editors would like to get involved. I also anticipate that trying to edit the Million Mogadishus incident will likely need some discussion. Boredintheevening (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)