Talk:Stephen Halbrook/Archive 1

Amusing removal of well-sourced material -- midsentence!
User:Justanonymous added the entire Bernard Harcourt quotation on Halbrook to the article with the edit summary ''per WP:BLP we have to be discrete here about exactly what was said. Took the actual quote and source., but User:Capitalismojo removed it, saying "remove unrelated neo-nazi material from BLP''". This is some extremely funny stuff. Removing part of a quotation mid-sentence because it contains "unrelated neo-nazi material"! And he is backed up by User:Gaijin42. The patent abuse of WP:BLP policy here is simply boggling. &mdash; goethean 21:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So your interpretation of BLP is that the part of a sentence NOT talking about Halbrook is relevant in an article about Halbrook? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My interpretation is straight-forward. There's no reason to chop up a quotation &mdash; in the middle of a clause! &mdash; because you personally dislike the contents of that clause. There's no other reason to remove a few words. The sentence doesn't even make sense now that you've butchered it &mdash; one of the dashes is now missing. Let's just excise a few words out of the middle of a clause because we don't like that they discuss our favorite gun control ideologue in connection with a controversial figure. &mdash; goethean 22:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The conflation of an unrelated white-power neo-nazi with a prominent attorney in a quote adds nothing to this BLP. The opinion of one professor/lawyer concerning another former professor/lawyer is a barely defensible addition to a BLP without the unrelated junk included. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Utter nonsense. There is nothing in the Harcourt material which comes close to violating BLP. Your chopping up a sentence and sticking it back together in an ungrammatical and unreadable way does not improve the article and should be reverted. &mdash; goethean 18:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to editors of this page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

cv updates
There has been some dispute as to necessary citations for biographical updates. Multiple citations have now been added. Please provide feedback if there are still concerns.

Dante 2001 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have not provided an independent Reliable Source to verify all the text you added. The Washington Post article does not verify the statements in the text.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. The Washington Post article combined with the amazon.com page verify most of the statements in the text. I believe the Independent Institute profile verifies the rest--or is that one questionable as an independent reliable source? Dante 2001 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the statement primarily summarizes the topics of his articles and books, most of which are self-evident merely from reading their titles which are listed further down on the Wikipedia page. Dante 2001 (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Washington Post to the extent it verifies, AOK. Amazon not a secondary editorially vetted source.  Independent Institute is related and not a good independent secondary reference in this context.  Please try to find more like WaPo.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The cv statement lists out topics on which he had published books. Amazon sells these books, therefore they exist. How can it get any clearer? (Obviously the articles are another matter.) I really can't tell if you're being serious or just messing with me. Be nice--I'm new to editing (as you may be able to tell). Dante 2001 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)