![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
|
||
The slew of banner tags was returned in June with the edit summary "Re-add tags removed without actually fixing the issues". I have removed some of the tags because they appear completely inappropriate to the current article.
The WP:PEACOCK tag appears to still be appropriate with phrases like "influential Southern California hardcore band" and " the controversial Annoy.com" making regular appearances throughout.
I am not seeing anything currently that indicates major issues involving WP:BLP tag - Can someone clarify? If those issues have been addressed the tag can be removed.
I am not sure about "conflict of interest" - if it relates to the statement I read above on the talk page that someone went to a library to research because he is interested in this article topic - then the tag is completely inappropriate but if I remember from my last visit here many months ago, someone related to Ferguson or someone involved with a legal matter involving Ferguson has been editing the article, the tag is correct -but may be removed if consensus is that any POV content that editor added has been addressed and is now presented in a 3rd party sourced neutral point of view.
Not being overly familiar with the subject, nothing jumps out as being unbalanced, so I have removed that tag - Please provide rationale if I have missed something.
Verify sources tag - Uwishiwazjohng indicates above that he has done that. I hope to be able to revisit the sources to confirm that the claims in the article are supported by the sources so that tag can be removed. (Or some other third party editor can do so as well if they have better access)
I will leave a note at the editor who re-added the tags to ask for clarification. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
therefore, I've removed the two corresponding templates: 1) disputing factual accuracy, and 2) citations that do not verify the text. --deb (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)"I think the article is fine and the tags unjustified. It could hardly have more or better sources." User:Steve Dufour 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to weigh in on the ((article issues)) tag, and I've finally got a few moments together to be able to do so. Here's my thoughts:
((COI))
((peacock))
((disputed)), ((blpdispute))
((citecheck)), ((self-published))
((primarysources)), ((refimprove BLP))
That's my take as to each of the above tags, and why I think that they should be returned to the article. — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a need to repost some of the discussion that has occurred since I first began editing this article on June 5, 2009 because it has been archived and the content is relevant to the discussion. The article was changed to re-add banners (and some extras) before I had finished updating it for clarity and accuracy on June 16, 2009; I responded to the user's talk page and was reported to WP:ANI, the Administrators' noticeboard/Incident page.[dubious ] The following was User:DoriSmith's justification:[dubious ]
And then I requested editors' input during the editing process at the WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, which was followed by the remarks below:
I would appreciate someone looking at a page I'm trying to clean up: David Ferguson (impresario). It's been tagged with many templates and I'm not sure if they're all appropriate. I think this article needs experienced Wikipedians to compare the templates to the contents of the biography. Thanks-- --deb (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to the article's talk page Talk: David Ferguson (impresario) --deb (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I just want to add that this is, in my opinion, not a WP:NPOV description of the situation by any stretch of the imagination. I invite anyone interested in this to view the original at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive546#.22Under_review_by_Wikipedia.22.3F—although why anyone would want to, I have no idea. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll address these issues in the order they were posted by User:DoriSmith
I don't know anything about the people on the list in User:DoriSmith's post of 07-21-09, including User:Annie999, (we may have the same last name--but no relation.) Clearly, there's no COI on my part.
I've worked diligently to cleanse all peacock terms. Regarding the term impresario--this is not peacock, it is a WP:category.
disputed, blpdisputed
User:DoriSmith disputes the content of the article because of the sources, but these have been conformed to meet Wikipedia requirements, so this template should not be present.
citecheck, self-published
I've done a great deal of research in libraries, as well as online, to verify and improve the sources cited in this article. The citations are legitimate and verifiable (i.e., Forbes, NPR, People Magazine, et al.) Citations that linked to the Punk Rock Orchestra website have now been replaced with citations from the original printed versions (i.e. Rolling Stone Magazine, National Lampoon, IBIS, et al.)
primarysources, refimprove BLP
See above. These are major publications with professional journalists who wrote under the supervision of an editor; therefore, because of the magnitude of the sources, the presumption is that the facts were checked in the normal journalistic process.
I have restored the article to User:Tabletop's edit (July 20, 2009 version) in order to recover the lost text and references so that I could continue improving the citations. Further, I believe a false claim of consensus is being made--therefore I would appreciate more input on the current version. deb (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel like I've written this same thing several times now and shouldn't have to do it again (read the archives, please!), but here I go anyway:
** User:Debora999 accused me here of having a COI.
I believe that User:DrJamesX has a COI as he is writing a biography of the subject.
Category:Astronauts is also a category. I'm against adding that to the article as well unless there are verifiable reliable sources that say he's an astronaut. If there are no secondary sources that refer to the subject as an impresario, then it's clearly ((Peacock)) language and should be labeled as such.Regarding the term impresario--this is not peacock, it is a WP:category.
At no point in the article is there anything about IFUC's anti-war involvement. Consequently, there's a statement here about a person with no supporting evidence whatsoever.Through IFUC, Ferguson has maintained his involvement in anti-war protests, an activism which dates back to his student days at the University of Miami in the 1960s.<ref name="Miami Yearbook">Cartoon David, University of Miami Yearbook, IBIS, 1968, p. 92</ref><ref name="Hurricane680809">The Miami Hurricane, August 9, 1968. p. 25.</ref>
—but if you read the two articles, nowhere in them is this connection made. NY Arts just says that the two were "long-time friend[s]". The latter says that, "Decades ago, often working closely with Andy Warhol and his Factory of Superstars, Ferguson produced concerts for the likes of Iggy Pop, the Avengers, and the Cockettes"—with no reference to how they met. So this could be ((or)), but I figured that ((citecheck)) was a better fit.Ferguson had also arranged for Pop Art icon Andy Warhol to speak at the campus in 1968,<ref name="NY Arts"> [http://www.nyartsmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145709&Itemid=721|Basquiat's Rediscovered Punk Art at Art Basel, Miami] NY Arts, March-April, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.</ref> an event that led to a professional association between the two.<ref name="Pen and Ink"/><ref name="NY Arts"/>
I'd like to state that my above examples are not all the problems I have with this article—just short examples to illustrate particular issues. Just because I didn't cite a issue above doesn't mean that I'm okay with it now.
And one more point: when mentioning "recover[ing] the lost text and references", does that mean references like this?
<ref name="Bode">Bode Cartoon character based on David Ferguson</ref>
Because that's exactly the type of reference this article does not need any more of. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on David Ferguson (impresario). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)