Talk:Teddy Keizer

Subjectivity
I guess I don't see the 'promotes subject in subjective matter complaint'. There was a line in an early version that claimed that Keizer was a very good student at a young age, but that line was edited to be more objective. I would argue the article is fairly objective in its current form.

I would agree that a few more citations would be a good thing. I know there are several more out there, it's just a question of rounding them up. Keizer is a well-known figure in the hiking community and it should be straightforward to augment the references.
 * There is a lot of subjectivity in this; the claim that he is "well-known", that he trained "vigorously", that he "spent a significant amount of effort", that it was a "physically grueling effort", that he has "prowess".
 * As for sourcing, there are a lot of boastful claims (speed records and such) that lack either any clear source or any reliable source, and those should probably be removed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added a reference to Gerry Roach's book which substantiates that Cave Dog owns the Mighty Mountain Megamarathon Record. This is a reliable source. It has sold thousands of copies and is widely regarded as the premiere source of information regarding Colorado's high peaks. There should be no confusion that Keizer set this record in September of 2000. If you check any of the non-Keizer related references on this article, each of them mention him owning the record. Not sure how much more reliable one can get.

As for the other records, I don't currently have sources on them other than Keizer's Dog Team website. I am working to get more sources for these.

Regarding phrases like "well-known", that he trained "vigorously", that he "spent a significant amount of effort", that it was a "physically grueling effort", that he has "prowess", I have modified these to be less subjective. I have kept a phrase 'climbed extensively' in regards to his training efforts. I am not sure there is any other way to classify it quite frankly. I took the liberty to remove some of the warnings. I hope these edits make the article more suitable.


 * And I have restored the sourcing-related tags, as the fact that there is much that is unsourced and much that has unreliable sources is something that should be called to other editors attention so that they can seek to improve the article appropriately. Leaning heavily on sources controlled by the subject is always problematic, and it becomes more so with someone who has political aspirations and thus much reason to paint himself in a light far better than what a more objective hand would produce. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to request you reconsider the tags. There are nine sources, six of which are non-Keizer related. There is now a third party source which verifies that his Mighty Mountain climbing record still stands. There are three Keizer related sources: one of them just explains the rules of the races, one talks about his appearance on OLN, and one is for his campaign site. I think they are useful sources of information, but they in no way are critical to the information in the article.
 * Most of the article is the Records section, five paragraphs which have zero in-line citations in them; that in itself justifies the call for more sources. The comment on the one Dog source suggests that it is to be used as a source for info on the records, which if we accept that as the source for this section justifies the other tag regarding being too dependent on related sources. Additionally, all claims of a political career are at this point based on sources that are too closely related. (May I also note at this point that the claim that the record stands as of March 2014 is sourced to a source which - whether or not it is a reliable source, which is a separate question - does not make that claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting this. It seems like there’s still some problems with this article based on a lack of citations and a reliance on the article’s living author as a source. It’s hard to know what’s true. Corinna.kirsch (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)