Talk:Thomas Lindsay (academic)

Unsourced material and recent material
Several recent edits have included unsourced material or citations to blogs, which are generally not considered reliable sources. The guidelines for biographies of living persons are pretty strong regarding such things, and require that all such edits be removed. So I reverted the edits twice now. Please do not replace them unless there are new, reliable sources for the material. I think we can all understand the rationale.

Also, many of these recent edits detail events that have taken place within the last few days or are even still unfolding. Wikipeida is generally not a good place to chronicle very recent events. (Wikinews might be a better option for that). To the extent that the information is truly encyclopedic, it might be better to wait until events settle down and a long-term view of their context and significance can be taken. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with this in spirit, but I'm sure we're both aware that Wikipedia often does an extraordinarily good job of providing reliable information on very recent or unfolding events. Obviously it is difficult to do so when faced by the legalistic rigmarole of WP:BLP -- a policy which of course would be unnecessary if the community were willing to take the simple step of removing ourselves from Google so that we could do our work in peace once again.
 * Also, I don't quite see how the hacks at NAS somehow rank as more reliable than other bloggers, but since the story has now been picked up by the national press, I suppose that's no longer terribly significant. -- Visviva (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I must confess that my fury at the near destruction of our irreplaceable alma mater has somewhat clouded my editorial judgment. Thank you for making sure that quality standards are maintained. I will try to be less enraged in the future. -- Visviva (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to qualify some of the concerns from the Shimer community with less ideologically charged language. I have some concern with the phrase 'the Seid-dominated Board of Trustees approved a wholesale rewrite by Lindsay of the school's mission statement.' Can anyone provide a better way of saying this? What is said was true, yet is this type of phrasing necessary?-- Rinner16 (talk) 9:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think that whatever is said should be found in the source. How about: On February 20, the Board of Trustees announced a new mission statement "to reflect more accurately the unique and continuing mission of Shimer College."?


 * A more general comment on the article is the due weight of the Shimer events. With almost no discussion of his prior career, the Shimer section seems less than neutral. With a bit more context on his career as a whole, the article would feel much more WP:NPOV, even with the Shimer discussion largely as is. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That reads much better, thanks!Rinner16 (talk)

1776 role
Significant role in Trumps commission Wikipietime (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)