Talk:Wesley Wark

Original research
User:Doktor Demento has been introducing content saying that the subject is poorly informed based on Wark's own writings. The latest edit doesn't use that exact phrase, but still has the same meaning. That is clear original research, as we base Wikipedia article on what secondary sources say about their subjects. I have no wish to get into an edit war, so have added an original research template to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not all additions to a page are backed up by published works with specific references. Sometimes, one must look at a body of another’s work, and then formulate an informed opinion based on that work. Mr. Wark might indeed be an expert on matters of intelligence. Nevertheless, examples of his published works or contributions to media reporting in the past 2 years identify a specific example of where his experience failed to identify easily obtainable facts available to anyone interested in finding them. I see no problem with identifying such shortcomings in an expert’s background if they are well documented and provide Wikipedia readers with additional context with which to judge the credibility of an article’s content. Anyone can call themselves an expert; if available evidence counters or modifies such claims, responsible and knowledgeable editors should make it known. Doktor Demento (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wesley Wark page
Not all additions to a page are backed up by published works with specific references. Sometimes, one must look at a body of another’s work, and then formulate an informed opinion based on that work. Mr. Wark might indeed be an expert on matters of intelligence. Nevertheless, examples of his published works or contributions to media reporting in the past 2 years identify a specific example of where his experience failed to identify easily obtainable facts available to anyone interested in finding them. I see no problem with identifying such shortcomings in an expert’s background if they are well documented and provide Wikipedia readers with additional context with which to judge the credibility of an article’s content. Anyone can call themselves an expert; if available evidence counters or modifies such claims, responsible and knowledgeable editors should make it known. Doktor Demento (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)