Talk:Josh Blackman

Inconsistent birth month

On 9 February 2019, this edit "corrected" the birth date from October to August in the lede and infobox, but not in Life and Career. Neither date is cited to any source. Under WP:BLP, among other policies, don't both dates have to be removed as unverified? Can anyone source this information? Note that, under WP:BLPSELFPUB, a self-published source (e.g., a blog post by Blackman himself) likely would be sufficiently reliable. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 16:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Harlan Institute

@Arllaw and Hatman31: Let's talk about how/whether to include the Harlan Institute in the article (after some back and forth editing). Hatman31, I see that you redirected a stub on the Harlan Institute here. Arllaw, you (IMO correctly) removed a somewhat-promotional line about the Harlan Institute from this article. I added a less promotional line, which you also removed. Comment that the CNN source does mention the Harlan Institute briefly, although one gets the impression from this and other pages that the institute is basically just Blackman. I think that if we're redirecting from Harlan Institute her, then there should be a brief mention of it here. Sending the HI to AfD/RfD would also be a sensible option. But let's remember that not everything described in an article needs to meet our notability tests. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I redirected the Harlan Institute article here because it didn't contain any independent sources and I thought this would be a good alternative to deletion. I definitely didn't intend the sentence I added to sound promotional and welcome efforts to improve my wording, but I do think it's necessary to include at least a brief mention of the organization here if the redirect is to remain to prevent any confusion; even though sources don't give it much attention, that shouldn't keep it out entirely. Hatman31 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

As we don't publish original research here, asserting that the subject of an article took action in association with an entity, such as the Harlan Institute, should be supported by a reliable source. Where the article about the activity makes no mention of the entity, and the entity's page makes no mention of the association, that need has not been met. While the content of an article about an otherwise notable subject is reviewed based upon a lower level of notability, factual assertions should still be supported by reliable sources and should not be self-promotional. WP:PROMOTION I have no objection to noting that Blackman started / co-founded the Harlan Institute, but it would be better if we could find sourcing for the organization's activities beyond Blackman's blog posts, the organization website, or press releases. Arllaw (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible we're looking at different articles here? This one definitely mentions the Harlan Institute (7th graf) but it looks like the page cites another CNN story by the same author which doesn't. Also, his affiliation with it is mentioned in the bios from the CATO Institute, Federalist Society, and South Texas College of Law. I don't think we need much more for a brief mention on-wiki. Hatman31 (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing adequate sources that support Blackman being involved with HI, including the CNN article and also the board of directors on HI's webpage. I'm not seeing anything to suggest so much impact from the institute, nor to suggest that it is meaningfully separate from Blackman. Between the redirect and the fact that a fair bit of Blackman's activities are run through the institute, I think we should include a brief, no-big-deal mention. Arllaw, do you see something better to put in than a mention by the FantasySCOTUS? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)