Talk:Chuck Philips

Alma mater?

It is listed as University of California, Long Beach. To my knowledge, there is no such institution. The only major public school in Long Beach is California State University, Long Beach, aka Long Beach State. Is this a mistake? --Jayron32 04:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this needs removing, since it does not fit the biography, and is uncited. California State University, Long Beach is sometimes called University of California, Long Beach it seems. Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

It is? They're two completely different systems. I've never heard the institution called anything except Long Beach State (casually) or Cal State Long Beach (somewhat more official) --Jayron32 19:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Lip synch

"...or on records but were lip-synching" I am not sure how one lip-synchs on a record. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

tried to fix this. Thanks for the feedback.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article has so many issues, I'll just start with one: original research. This can be sort of subtle when the subject is a journalist. When you say in the article that the subject has written an piece in some publication and the citation you use is the actual article you're talking about, that does not count as a reliable source because it is not independent. So by using that as your reference, you are doing original research. What you need is an independent news article that reports about that article. Adhering to this guideline keeps notability in check.

It looks like maybe 80% of the references in this article are the author's own. If it were up to me, the article would start over from scratch using only the independent reliable sources. I don't doubt that the subject is in fact notable, but probably not enough so to warrant such a long article. Fnordware (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

23:29, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+979)‎ . . Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ‎ (→‎Chuck Philips: new section)

18:48, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+770)‎ . . Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard ‎ (→‎Journalists)

22:42, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+125)‎ . . Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences ‎ (→‎Crime: Death of Alesia Thomas)

20:29, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+832)‎ . . Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard ‎ (→‎Journalists: new section)

20:17, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,018)‎ . . Talk:Chuck Philips ‎ (→‎Multiple issues: new section) (current)

20:07, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+127)‎ . . Chuck Philips ‎ (Flag the article for multiple issues. Discuss on the talk page.) (current)

19:54, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+345)‎ . . Talk:Benjamin Crump ‎ (→‎Alesia Thomas: new section) (current)

19:52, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,404)‎ . . Benjamin Crump ‎ (→‎Career: Career section clean-up) (current)

19:12, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-871)‎ . . Shooting of Trayvon Martin ‎ (→‎Martin family attorneys: Benjamin Crump link, deleted info about unrelated case) (curr

WrongScholarlyarticles (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, I don't believe that's the proper way to discuss weather you disagree with my assessment of this article. As you have pointed out, I have been working on some related articles, which is how I came across this one. Not sure how that's supposed to indicate anything. I am also posting on noticeboards here and here to get clarification with regard to Wikipedia guidelines. I don't think you should have removed my flagging of the article, but I'll wait for more input before I consider putting it back. Fnordware (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Nordware, It's late. I need to go to sleep. It might take me awhile to be more articulate about the point I'm tying to make. I hope you'll be patient with me until I can respond. The original articles are there not to demonstrate notability but as reference of uncontroversial material. Meanwhile I'm curious as to how all these articles relate to one another as it's not at all obvious to me how they would all be of interest to you.. Best Scholarlyarticles (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've put the tags back per your original post. Sentences like this - "Philips series was comprehensively researched, withstanding all attacks." - need more scrutiny. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC):

Thanks, NeilN. Or how about the part that reads, "A dogged reporter..." The article is full of stuff like this. Fnordware (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN, Since you are already collecting votes for blocking me among various editors who've questioned anything I have written, or with whom I've had a content dispute, perhaps it would be appropriate for you to refrain from working on pages I've edited. An administrator has asked you to please refrain until he or she has vetted the issues. May I suggest that it is not the best method to reach consensus on WHO you wish to block, then discuss among yourselves WHY you want to block them, then canvass for sympathetic administrators and venues before actually submitting the complaint. It could be construed as canvassing. Meanwhile, it would help if you could stop archiving your canvassing comments so I can actually have diffs to show people. I have placed the iterations of your comments into a word folders for future reference since your are requesting to have them archived.. I will review them more thoroughly later but gotta catch some shut eye.. I have a note in to the interested editors who responded on the articles board and are interested in Philips' work. Perhaps we should wait for him or her to respond. Perhaps we could also wait for the administrator currently vetting your anticipated complaint about me to respond who is also litigating the content issues that are my concern. Good night and have pleasant tomorrow.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As usual, Scholarlyarticles is completely misrepresenting the situation. I have no idea why you posted this here Scholarlyarticles, but no admin has asked me to refrain from doing anything, I'm not asking for a block, and I have no idea what you mean by "stop archiving your canvassing comments". And no admin is currently vetting my RfC/U draft. As I stated earlier, I have many Rosemond-related articles on my watchlist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, back to this article. My main problem is that there is way too much detail in this biographical article about various events Philips has written about. Scholarlyarticles has made sure to it that Philips' journalism is mentioned in the articles for the events themselves: the murder of Biggie Smalls, Tupac Shakur, Ticketmaster anti-trust. There is no need to repeat the details here, just give a quick mention and link to the pages where the details belong. The two-sentences on Milli Vanilli are about right for describing a subject he's covered. Any reference to a Philips news article here is a primary source, which are supposed to be used carefully. I'd call this reckless abandonment, the vast majority of the sources being primary sources. Again, my recommendation is we clear those sections out and rebuild them with whatever secondary sources we have. Fnordware (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention the lead paragraph, which is unreadable. E.g. his Pulitzer is discussed at length there and barely at all in the body. And why are there so many inline citations in the lead? I wanted to start rewriting it last night, but it's not even clear what to do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I just moved all that stuff to a separate Awards section and got rid of the unnecessary inline citations. The lead paragraph (now just one sentence) could probably use a sentence saying "He is best known for..." So I guess that accounts for 3% of the needed clean-up. Fnordware (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you four are already involved in multiple discussions about me and about ways of blocking me, might I ask that you stop working on material I write or posting about things I write to multiple boards.Thanks, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote on my talk page, the two issues are not related. Any talk of blocking you is for edit warring and other bad editor behavior. Whatever I may think of the material you've added to this article, I don't think you should be blocked for it. But I do think it should be cleaned up. You could even help if you wanted. Fnordware (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Fnordware I'm sorry since the versions on NeilN's keeps archiving his discussinm it was this discussion I was talking about on NeilN's talk page:

IRfC/U for Scholarlyarticles? Please read this. Do you think a RfC/U would be a good idea and if so, would you be willing to certify? --NeilN talk to me 03:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC) @NeilN: the complete lack of understanding or willingness to follow BLP is troubling (i have just given her a final warning) as is the SPA campaign and the conspiracy mindset, all of which are troublesome enough in themselves, but then bundled together... if she ignores the final warning then something will need to be done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IRfC/U for Scholarlyarticles?[edit] Please read this. Do you think a RfC/U would be a good idea and if so, would you be willing to certify? --NeilN talk to me 03:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC) I think your account is accurate. I don't quite understand what the RfC/U process is meant to accomplish, but I can certainly attest to everything you've written there and would certify if you should initiate it. The weirdness around here has no bottom.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC) It's an alternative to asking for a good-faith but problematic editor to be blocked or banned. Hopefully the editor in question would change their behavior. --NeilN talk to me 05:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC) I can't actually say anything I'm thinking about the chances of that, so I'll just say "OK."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles[edit] FYI, I'm having a similar issue with the same user, although they are not as eloquent with me. But now I just saw that you have noticed it here. You're quick! Fnordware (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC) I also notice that Scholarlyarticles seems to be putting Chuck Philips in other places. For example, the Biggie Smalls article frequently mentions that Chuck Philips wrote an article about something in the article text thanks to edits like this one. And then this link you mentioned refers to Chuck Philips as "my client." So it appears that Scholarlyarticles may actually be working for the subjects of articles he's editing. Fnordware (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Fnordware, the IP was talking about Jimmy Henchman, not Philips. I don't think Scholarlyarticles has any COI, just deep misunderstandings of several policies and guidelines."

By the way, do you mind if I move this conversation to my talk page where it belongs? Lastly, note I mentioned her edit on your talk page here. --NeilN talk to me 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I was speaking about those discussions and the request for you four to comment in Neil/N's sandbox to comment about a complaint he's writing. ThanksScholarlyarticles (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was not deleted, it was moved to his talk page. But you pasting it here is yet another example of bad editor behavior. You really should cut it out. Fnordware (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Working on a memoir

What's the source for this? I spent a few minutes googling for one and couldn't find anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, the word "memoir" was first inserted here, but it was used to summarize a sentence already in there. That sentence, about him working on a book, was present from the article's creation by Scholarlyarticles here. Perhaps the article's creator could tell us about the source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It says in the Village Voice "New York literary houses loved a proposal I wrote for a book about the murders of Tupac and Biggie, but declined to publish the book after Googling me and reviewing the April 7 retraction in the LA Times." Not really a memoir though. Probably just delete that info. Fnordware (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Note, I took out the external links and mention of the attack at the Quad for now. Since this seems to be its most controversial element. I hope this helpsScholarlyarticles (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Took out the whole article since is is controversial for now. I hope this helps. I'll but in the version that was in the start classScholarlyarticles (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So you don't have a source for the memoir? Are you not interested in discussing the content of articles at all?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't, think so. Bizarre. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm speechless…almost. Scholarlyarticles, even though we have many problems with the article you wrote, you should take comfort in knowing that much of the material for the article we are moving toward will still be written by you, just minus all the stuff without secondary sources. You started an article about a person who was notable and should have a Wikipedia article. Not understanding Wikipedia's guidelines is understandable when you're new; I made some mistakes myself early on. Continuing to be disruptive is not understandable though. With today's edit war I assume you will be blocked. Fnordware (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why group references

Regarding this edit with edit summary about not being sure why they're grouped. I'm the culprit! I went through and grouped references that weren't used more than once but were supporting the same sentence. I just have a phobia to multiple footnotes at the end of the same sentence, probably induced by POV-warriors in other articles, where every dispute ends with another number at the end of a sentence. It's a stylistic preference of mine, and I do it everywhere I edit if no one objects. I certainly won't revert you, but would just note that if there's no compelling reason not to group (e.g. multiple invocations of at least one of the references involved) I personally prefer to group. That's all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ack, sorry! I had just not seen that before. I am used to the multiple footnotes, but agree that it can get unwieldy. Is there any sort of guideline? I guess it makes sense that if you have multiple sources that make the same point and you are inclined to include them both (and you don't want to use either of them individually later on), you group them. Feel free to put it back. Fnordware (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know if there's a guideline, but if you take a look at e.g. any article whatsoever on an illegal Israeli settlement or other topic in the Israel/Palestine area, you'll see why there ought to be a guideline. Anyway, no harm, no foul... I'll put it back... keep up the good work!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, 'tis already dealt with...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Go Team!

Well, I've removed the flags on the article for the obvious reason: I think all the issues have been dealt with. Significantly, there are no more Chuck Philips news article cited in the Chuck Philips Wikipedia article. Thanks to everyone who helped out. Thanks also to the creator of this article, much maligned though she may be right now. Fnordware (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. We've done good work here, and, despite her flaws, the article creator did, after all, create the article on an interesting and notable figure.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice work all the way around. AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

UserScholarlyArticles under his/her IP address has added back in, including Chuck Philips news articles, a lot of what was edited out. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Round and round and round she goes, and where she stops...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk)

...nobody knows.—AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@AuthorAuthor - You closed out your discussion with me on my talk page deciding to recuse yourself. I think this was an excellent choice. I have not opened it up to public review. If you have a conflict of interest with this Philips, that is if you have a financial interest in books about Tupac, please revert yourself in any place you have defamed him. I am not going to let inaccurate and defamatory information concerning him or anyone else I admire stand. Best Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, the last conversation between AuthorAuthor and yourself on your talk page is this. Where is the recusal? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No recusal. After I did some edits on the Philips' page, Scholarlyarticles reverted them all (similar edits were eventually done by other editors to clean up the Philips article). I undid the Scholarlyarticles' revert with the plan to not engage further in an edit war should she revert again. It became obvious in her comments that she had a strong ownership attitude toward that article. After she salvaged a portion of what I had done, I considered the matter resolved. I said as much in a comment to Scholarlyarticles, and I moved on. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like recent edits have taken the article a stop backwards from where it was on March 21. Can we just revert to that version? Fnordware (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)