Talk:Ken Silverstein (business journalist)

Requested move 10 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Ken Silverstein (columnist) → Ken Silverstein (business journalist) – The other Ken Silverstein (the one with an article at Ken Silverstein) is also a columnist. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. An obvious example of incomplete disambiguation. Whether one Ken Silverstein should be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the other one may need to be decided in a separate RM.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• The current hatnotes seem sufficient to me. But I don't object to the proposal, except what do we do with Ken Silverstein (columnist) if this is moved? To leave it as a redirect makes the move largely meaningless. It doesn't make sense to turn it into a dab page. And it certainly can't be redirected to the other Ken Silverstein (who does appear to be primary of the two). This would only make sense if Ken Silverstein (columnist) were deleted as a redirect. Station1 (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Deleting Ken Silverstein (columnist) seems like it would be fine. Nothing (in article space) is linking to it. Otherwise, we might need a dab page. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Incomplete disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Global South and Rainforest Nations

An editor has repeatedly added a section about "Global South and Rainforest Nations" -- the first time, the only reference was to one of the subject's articles as an example, rather than any article that confirmed the content. The second time had not even that much reference. This is an article on a living person, and we must attend to our guidelines on biographies of living people. Big blocks of unsourced information is not the way to go; let us keep an eye on what reliable third-party sources have to say. I am removing the paragraph again; please do not re-add until consensus has been reached. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

To see the stories on the various rainforest nations, please look at the Forbes archives. If you want to do the work, hyperlink to the stories, also picked up by numerous outlets. JEFeditor (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

We are looking for reliable third-party sources talking about this, if possible, to show that it's a matter of import. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I will look. I was at a COP28 function and the COP Chief from the UAE referenced and shared these stories, which is how I locked on to them. JEFeditor (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I write this note respectfully. I read the edits and saw you referenced something about Southern California Edison's nuclear plants from roughly a dozen years ago. I am letting you know you linked to an essay I can't find. You made a cynical note about not being able to verify the company's critique of the writer. I googled it and it took 30 seconds at most to find that: June 2013 from Forbes in a story titled Southern California Edison Playing Hide-And-Seek With Public And Regulators. I see that you are a comic strip writer. I know very little about comic strips and must be qualified to edit your biography or strips. I work as a climate specialist and a former technical editor. Respectfully, you should not be editing biographies of energy and environmental writers because this is not your specialty. Quite honestly, it shows. I sent the subject an email, which is public, and he responded that he has no interest in getting involved: "I deal with editors and readers all day long. That's enough stress." JEFeditor (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yours is a new account, and you may have had little or no previous experience editing biographical articles for Wikipedia. It comes as no surprise then that you are not that familiar with our sourcing requirements and concerns, which have little to do with the field the subject is engaged in. The article you are referring to is a story written by Silverstein himself as a "Forbes Contributor".... as you will see at WP:FORBESCON, we consider that a problematic source. Additionally, the piece I removed claimed that the company accused him of "journalism malfeasance", an accusation that does not appear in the article you cite. It merely accused him of "grave factual errors", which is not a statement of intention... and Silverstein himself notes that "The original story was not totally correct." Having a strong accusation against someone without source is a real problem under our guidelines for editing biographies of living persons. And in general (and this is a large problem with this article even before you laid hands on it), we want to base our coverage on reliable third-party sources to show us what should be included in this article, and an article by Silverstein himself is not third-party.

You may also want to review our policy against making personal attacks, which says to "comment on content, not on the contributor." This message was grounded in your misinterpretation of one portion of my professional career... and a person need not have a career of any sort to be a Wikipedia contributor. This site has a rich array of policies, guidelines, and practices, and I certainly don't expect you to be as aware of them as an editor would tens of thousands of edits would be. I appreciate your enthusiastic effort to edit here. It may help you to integrate into here if you don't start in the assumption that your edits are beyond correction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)