Talk:Robert Bartholomew

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert Bartholomew Headshot.jpg

Update of this page
Hi folks just doing a few checks on the citations on this page. Some seem to be inactive - in particular, the CV (not sure a CV is an acceptable citation?) one.

Greg     Realitylink (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Connected Contributor tag
See Finding of Fact 2 and Finding of Fact 4 in the Skepticism and Coordinated Editing ArbCom case for more information. Geogene (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that two people who have written for the same magazine are connected? VdSV9• ♫ 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the ArbCom case I linked to if you don't understand. Geogene (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (offline comment by on Wikibreak, tagging myself to remind me of properly signing it whenever)  Thank you very much for your non-answer, it was not helpful at all. Your tag says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." You justify by linking to the findings of fact. The only thing, as far as I could tell, on the FoF that might have relevance to your tag is the fact that Sgerbic and Rp2006 have written for SI, as has Bartholomew, hence my question. Suggesting that I read an Arbcom case that with tens of thousands of words, which BTW I have already read and made a couple comments in while it was happening, doesn't do anything to answer the question or clarify your position in any way. You are making a claim, you are the one required to provide the evidence and clarifications to justify the tag, not just wave your hand and say "look over there if you don't understand".2804:35E0:11:2C00:F47C:5DBC:761:25AD (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sgerbic is the subject of FoF2 in the ArbCom case. Her only contribution ever to this article was  to add a new book to his list of publications, in 2019.  I struggle to see how that constitutes being "a major contributor to this article".--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this article, Bartholomew is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. According to the FoF's I linked to, contributor(s) have a conflict of interest with the Center for Inquiry, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and related people. Both of you were participants (but not parties) in that ArbCom case. I'm not sure why your questions are necessary. I find that somewhat concerning. Geogene (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, as for authorship statistics, that's displayed here . Although I'm not sure how accurate that is because this looks like it might have been created from a copy-paste move . There may be additional contributions that aren't present in the history. Geogene (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert Bartholomew was NOT a Fellow for CSI in September 2019. And I have just removed my September 2019 edit where I added the book he wrote. So we are all good now. Sgerbic (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind - he was a Fellow in 2017 - sorry I just checked. But as my edit is now gone, the point is moot. Sgerbic (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you re-read my question, I did not question that FoF. What I questioned was your contention that Sgerbic was "a major contributor to this article" when she only ever made one small, uncontroversial edit about two and a half years ago.  I'm not sure why your contention is necessary. I find that somewhat concerning.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)