Talk:Steven D. Binder

PROD BLP

The link to IMDb verifies the information in the article. There were some unverifiable statements when the article was first created, but I removed them and added the aforementioned IMDb link. I don't understand why this article is proposed deleted per WP:BLPPROD. The article does rely on a single source, but the article certainly isn't unsourced. --Cgtdk (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice the Chicago Tribune link. Imdb is not a reliable source. Claims in the article need better sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't know IMDb wasn't considered a reliable source. I see that you've already replaced PROD BLP with a more appropriate template :) --Cgtdk (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken about IMDB. IMDB is a partner with the Writer's Guild of America, a body that has the SOLE authority governing writing credits for signatory production companies (even superseding those companies' authority). There is no higher authority on writing credits and, most importantly, IMDB gets their writing credits directly from the WGA. From their website below:

"IMDb Data Partner: The Writers Guild of America"

"The Writers Guild of America (WGA) has a well-defined process for determining credits on projects produced under its jurisdiction. These productions are generally USA-controlled live-action film and TV projects, produced either by studios or major independent producers. In 1999, the WGA began furnishing credits directly to IMDb....The IMDb will not accept uncredited writers for titles with WGA-determined credits."

http://www.imdb.com/partners/wga

In other words, the WGA is the only entity on the planet that gets to decide writing credits on shows in their jurisdiction -- and they provide that information directly to IMDB. Swiftcasting (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE

To the preceding post, I now assume IMDB (or TV.com even) would be an acceptable citation for this reversion? It seems a noteworthy achievement to have written so money - the most noteworthy thing, considering the show has been the most popular show in America for several years running now and considering the turnover in writers. Or is the issue just substantiation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_D._Binder&diff=526926012&oldid=526924669

Swiftcasting (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Imdb has been discussed ad nauseam at WP:RSN and is generally not regarded as a reliable source. We even have templates to place on BLPs because of it. See {{BLP IMDb refimprove}} and {{BLP IMDb-only refimprove}}. Tv.com is not a reliable source either. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I followed this link -->> WP:RSN <<-- and didn't see anything pertaining to IMDB. Can you please direct me to where these discussions have taken place?  :) Also, I followed the other two links -- and they both referenced IMDB as being unreliable as it pertains to "biographical information" -- and to that I don't disagree. But that is not what we are talking about. We aren't talking about a person's biographical information, we are talking specifically about writing credits for a produced show. Again, forget IMDB's official statement on the matter - look at what the Writer's Guild of America has to say on the subject (see below) - you'll see that IMDB gets their writing credit information from the the sole (and only) source on the planet when it comes to verified writing credits (aka the WGA). So please forgive me for this, but I can only assume you are confusing in what way IMDB is "not a reliable source" (mistaking the reliable WGA-provided writing credits for the unreliable "biographical information") or the people who have discussed the matter "ad nauseum" are uniformed on the matter and are lumping the writer credits in with every other aspect of IMDB. The black and white fact is, WGA has sole authority for determining credits. If Paramount makes a movie and pays for the entire thing, the WGA still decides writing credits. And IMDB gets their writing credit information directly from the WGA - as least, post 1999. Which makes IMDB writing credits on WGA signatory shows as reliable as you can find these days. And to not recognize this, and give OTHER sources of writing credits for WGA signatory productions more validity than IMDB only hurts the accuracy of Wikipedia. Other information on IMDB, sure, that's hardly reliable. But go try changing a writing credit on a WGA signatory show on IMDB. See what happens. You won't get it changed (the editor's won't allow it)...and if it does slip by (and is wrong), it will last barely a day before the WGA corrects it.

FOLLOW-UP Take a look at this link from the Writer's Guild of America http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/who_we_are/annual_reports/credits04.pdf QUOTE: "The Credits Department determines the writing credits for theatrical and television projects produced under the Guild’s jurisdiction. Production companies are required to submit a Notice of Tentative Writing Credits to the Guild and the participating writers at the end of principal photography in order for the Guild to oversee the writing credits." MORE IMPORTANTLY: "In 2003 the Credit Department added Baseline/Filmtracker and TVTracker to the other major Internet databases (IMDb, IMDbpro and Upcomingmovies.com) with which the Guild provides WGA credits in order to improve the presentation and accuracy of writing credits."

In other words, some reporter at the Chicago Tribune writes an article...and it's Wikipedia gospel?  :) But the credits on IMDB, provided directly by the only entity in the world that has authority on that matter - and who regularly patrols changes to its signatory production company's production listings to verify credits - is unreliable? You know who that Chicago Tribune fact-checker would get their facts from? Aside from IMDB...  :) ...if they really wanted to be sure, they would call the Writer's Guild. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.67.3 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Did you try searching for imdb? I found over 70 discussions.[1] The article is a biography so all of the content must comply with our policy on biographies of living persons and, despite your assertion, writing credits are part of the biographical information. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this specific article. If you want to discuss the reliability of imdb as a source, this is not the place for that. WP:RSN is the correct venue to try to gain consensus for your opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I actually didn't even think to look for a search box -- I was thrown off by all the discussions that WERE on the page, so that I thought it was all inclusive already. I will search - and move my discussion there. But back to this article (I'm sorry for not making a new topic...trying to figure all this out)...so what source then would YOU consider to be a valid source for writing credits? I suppose a link to the iTunes music store, where if one wanted to, they could verify every single credit by looking at the actual screen credit on the actual show...? If they wanted to take the time -- but that certainly IS verifiable. Though actually, by your own assertions on biographical versus not, it seems then that a link to IMDB's NCIS listing itself (and not any person) would be sufficient? Again, forget Steven D. Binder...all of the NCIS writing credits on the NCIS page on IMDB are provided by the one source on the planet that has sole discretion to name writing credits (aka the WGA). Which actually highlights another point (before I go move this discussion to the other location) - you are actually confusing two different things when you talk about IMDB and biographies, thus are in error. Yes, if you look solely at Steven D. Binder's IMDB page, you could choose to characterize all the info on it as "biographical". However, the Binder writing credits don't exist in a vacuum -- the credits on Steven D. Binder's page also exist on writing credits on the main NCIS page, in fact, that's where they are all actually coming from. In other words, if you click on NCIS, you will see a list of all of NCIS writing credits. Would you call those biographical, too? No, they are not - as NCIS is not a person. The writing credits under the listing NCIS are the credits for NCIS provided directly by the Writer's Guild of America. They are just being duplicated on Binder's page. And any NCIS credits one attempts to add to Steven D. Binder's page, will also appear on NCIS's main page, and go through the full vetting process by the WGA. Swiftcasting (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Relevancies

As I stated in the history page, I'm a little confused here. It seems to me some very subjective decisions are driving some of the reversions. If Bob writes an poem, it ain't Wikipedia-worthy, right? But if Bob writes a poem, and it's voted the Number One Poem of All Time...I would think not only would Bob now merit a Wikipedia article...but the fact the poem he wrote was the Number One Poem of All Time would be worth a mention as well. To be honest, how do you NOT mention it? It's totally relevant context.

Likewise, if we are discussing a writer of, say, I Love Lucky...and he just happens to be a writer who's written more episodes than anyone of the series, I would think that certainly deserves a mention, too. It's no small thing -- both to current aficionados and to television history. Also, some extremely popular long running shows have hundreds of writers. Do they all get Wikipedia entries? I would think not. But if it's a really popular show...and there was one writer who wrote more of them than anyone...that doesn't merit a special mention in an encyclopedic article about that writer? Again, how do you NOT mention it? NCIS is the most popular show on television. They've had over 50 writers. And one guy has written more than most of them put together and that doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia article about him as a writer? How is that possible?

I really am pretty confused. First, the issue with these few lines were one of verifiability. So the citation was changed to a 100% verifiable source. But then the issue has changed to one of irrelevancy - a position that doesn't seem to rest on the firmest of ground IMHO. This is starting to seem "personal" to be honest. Swiftcasting (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If Bob writes the greatest poem of all time, as he is the only person, or at least the most significant person involved in writing the poem, the poem, then maybe Bob might be Wikipedia worthy. If hundreds of people are involved in writing the poem, who's to say that Bob alone deserves the credit? That's the problem here. According to the episode list, of the 221 episodes with writer credits, he has written only 29 episodes and, of those, 10 were co-credits. Since NCIS' success cannot be directly attributed to Binder, it's not maintaining a neutral point of view to include claims of that success in the lead. All content must be verifiable, especially when it comes to BLPs. You can't simply make the jump to him having contributed significantly to the show's success without a citation from a reliable source that specifically says that is the case. To do so without such a a source is WP:SYNTH, which is unacceptable. On the subject of sources, sources must explicitly support claims in the article. A claim that he "is credited on-screen as having written more episodes than any other single writer" cannot be supported by a source that doesn't even mention him. He is most certainly "credited on-screen", but his is not "credited on-screen as having written more episodes than any other single writer". Nobody is credited on-screen that way. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, the claim that he "is credited on-screen as having written more episodes than any other single writer" is false. After a count of the writers, it turns out that both Frank Cardea and George Schenck have written more episodes than he has:

Name	Episodes
Frank Cardea	30
George Schenck	30
Steven Binder	29
Jesse Stern	22
Reed Steiner	20
David North	18
Donald Bellisario	16
John Kelly	16
Gary Glasberg	14
Christopher Waild	14
Shane Brennan	11
Dan Fesman	7
Nicole Mirante-Matthews	7
Jack Bernstein	6
Gil Grant	5
Alfonso Moreno	5
Scott Williams	5
Don McGill	4
Frank Military	4
Dana Coen	3
Steven Kriozere	3
Nell Scovell	3
Richard Arthur	2
Linda Burstyn	2
Chris Crowe	2
Roger Director	2
Gina Lucita Monreal	2
Robert Palm	2
Jeff Vlaming	2
Laurence Walsh	2
Lee David Zlotoff	2
Allison Abner	1
Andrew Bartels	1
Leon Carroll	1
Juan Carlos Coto	1
Philip DeGuere	1
Bob Gookin	1
Steven Kane	1
Jeffrey Kirkpatrick	1
Steven Long Mitchell	1
Joshua Lurie	1
Darcy Meyers	1
Gina Monreal	1
Thomas Moran	1
Larry Moskowitz	1
Craig W. Van Sickle	1

Given this information, the claim is not appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

AUSSIE LEGEND: "As it turns out, the claim that he 'is credited on-screen as having written more episodes than any other single writer' is false. After a count of the writers, it turns out that both Frank Cardea and George Schenck have written more episodes than he has:"

LOL -- I thought you said Wikipedia wasn't a valid source for that information -- suddenly you are using it?  :) In any case, aside from the fact that doesn't contain Binder's latest episodes, you again are making an error. The original claim was that Binder wrote more episodes than any other single writer. Frank Cardea and George Schenck are TWO writers who are an official WRITING TEAM and have co-written every single script they've ever written. In other words, they are not a "single" writer. Those 30 scripts...they each wrote half of them. Binder is co-credited a on few, yes (and so are most of the other writers) - but that wasn't even as a team, that was still as a single writer (check the WGA website for the difference between multiple single writers and a "bona fide writing team") . Either way, Binder has written, by far, more episodes than any other single writer - which, if you check, was what was originally written. The only one who comes close is Jesse Stern -- a writer who came long after Binder, by the time the show was already established -- and left long before Binder - who is still there. Bellisario, Kelly, North, Steiner, Brennan - they haven't worked on the show in years, most of them. Again, please take a second look at whether you are being objective...because you are objecting to something that wasn't said.

AUSSIE LEGEND: "If Bob writes the greatest poem of all time, as he is the only person, or at least the most significant person involved in writing the poem, the poem, then maybe Bob might be Wikipedia worthy. If hundreds of people are involved in writing the poem, who's to say that Bob alone deserves the credit? "

That is an apples & oranges argument. A poem is one piece of writing. A TV is made up of dozens of discrete pieces of writing (episodes). Thus, it is inaccurate to say hundreds of people are involved "in writing the show". What IS accurate is many people have written INDIVIDUAL episodes - and as you can see, out of over 220 episodes, the majority of those writers have only written a very small handful - like 1 or 2 in most cases. Thus, they are not responsible for the overall writing timbre of the show, they are merely mimicking what the larger contributors have done. In addition, you listed 46 writers, who again, the VAST MAJORITY only worked on the show for a few months (check their credits). A few of them were on the show for a few years. But Binder has been there for over eight years, continuously. No other writer on the show has been there continuously for that long. Schenk and Cardea started a year before Binder, but they left for a while. In any case, it's moot because nobody is saying NCIS success is directly attributable to Binder...

AUSSIE LEGEND: "Since NCIS' success cannot be directly attributed to Binder, it's not maintaining a neutral point of view to include claims of that success in the lead."

First of all, nothing about the original post claimed that NCIS' success is directly attributable to Binder -- the original post was a quantified observation of the number of shows he had written. And also describing the success of the show that Binder was working on. The same as if this was a Wikipedia entry of a guest star and his entry said, "John the Guest Star has appeared more times on NCIS, ranked the most popular show in the world, then any other guest star." So does that mean - or even imply - John is responsible for the show's success? Absolutely not. So your objection is invalid at the outset. In any case, you are now contradicting something you said earlier - and to which I agreed. This post is NOT about NCIS -- it is about Binder. And his achievements as a writer. It has nothing to do with the success of NCIS when remarking that Binder has written more episodes than any other single writer on the show. Or mentioning that the show Binder worked on was extremely popular. Binder's presence doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the fact NCIS is the Number One show on television, in fact. However, when discussing HIS personal achievements, working a show that successful is certainly worth mentioning in an article about HIM. As is his unique ranking in the pantheon of writers who have contributed to the show. Again, how can such a thing NOT be said? It is now you, in your assumptions - not what was written - that are making this post about NCIS.

AUSSIE LEGEND: "You can't simply make the jump to him having contributed significantly to the show's success without a citation from a reliable source that specifically says that is the case. "

Again, no one stated that - and such an assertion is unprovable and completely subjective. The objective facts, however, are that Binder worked on NCIS - not just any show, but the most popular show of all time. And wrote more episodes than any other single writer. Those are straight facts about Binder, not NCIS. And they are relevant to him. If you want to make the leap that those facts mean he contributed to the show's success, that is a leap YOU are making, and probably his mother.  :) But you may very well find fans of the show who think his episodes suck -- and will think the exact opposite of you.

AUSSIE LEGEND: "To do so without such a a source is WP:SYNTH, which is unacceptable. "

Since no specific claim was made about Binder's responsibility to the success of the show, no source is required.

AUSSIE LEGEND: "A claim that he 'is credited on-screen as having written more episodes than any other single writer' cannot be supported by a source that doesn't even mention him. He is most certainly 'credited on-screen', but he is not 'credited on-screen as having written more episodes than any other single writer'."

And he doesn't have to be credited that way. First of all, it is against Wikipedia policy to directly copy the words from a source -- so what you are suggesting is "illegal". Secondly - and you know this - the way sources work is the source contains the information, then that information is paraphrased or parsed on to Wikipedia. What does this mean for that citation? It means the information posted about Binder's number of writing credits IS verifiable and reliable -- you can count up the credits and VERIFY the claim. If I said there were 156 shuttle missions -- it is more than enough to link to a list of all the shuttle missions. The number 156 doesn't have to appear anywhere -- since the meaning "156" DOES appear in the number of listings of actual missions. What...it only counts for you if the list is numbered - but if it's not numbered, and there's just all the shuttle missions in a non-numbered list, it doesn't count? That's exactly what you're saying. And that's absurd. On the subject of verifiability, Wikipedia states: "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source." CHECK THE INFORMATION, they say. It is a matter of counting to check that information.

I guess we are in diametrical opposition on this point. I'm fairly unfamiliar with the arbitration process on Wikipedia (thought QUITE familiar with in the law -- and feel quite confident my position will withstand scrutiny). Perhaps time to call in a third party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftcasting (talk • contribs) 02:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk page about disputed edits. I suggest you read it and the linked articles. In accordance with WP:STATUSQUO I've reverted to the pre-disputed edits version of the article, and the section should not be edited until this discussion is complete and there isconsensus for your edits. I'm busy right now but I will attempt to respond to your comments above in the next few hours. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

wow - free time anyone? but what's the problem? these things are stats - just like u find on any sports figures page. so He plays on a team that won the World Series of TV? So what? That's worth knowing. And he ran in the most home runs. Also Worth knowing. Doesn't mean he's responsible for everything - I certainly didn't get that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.208.39 (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

AUSSIE LEGEND: "In accordance with WP:STATUSQUO I've reverted to the pre-disputed edits version of the article"

Um...not sure how to say this with seeming rude (and I don't mean to)...but no you didn't. You didn't revert to the "pre-disputed edits" at all. You reverted to a version that is very much in dispute - and is identical to the version you have been pushing, and that I have been disputing. If you want to revert to a "pre-disputed" version then revert to the version that was online before you started disputing it.

As for the "edit-warring" comment on my talk page (appreciate the information) you quote this: ""If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives." The problem here is, you also have been doing EXACTLY that. You had an edit that was in good-faith reverted, and you simply reinstate based on inaccurate information. We had a "dispute" - and you did not leave the status quo, you reverted the page to YOUR edit. You were also pushing your versions over and over, but changing your rationale for them as I knocked each prior one out, and several times using demonstrably inaccurate justifications. This after you proposed to delete the article for not having any sources, when in fact it had a Tribune article as a source. How did you miss that?

See where I'm going with this? I'm going with...I think you are being biased. So either you can revert the page to a REAL version that is pre-disputed, or I can. But either way, time for a third party.Swiftcasting (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would have been nice if you would have given me a chance to respond to your first post today, as I said I would try to, before posting a whole lot more stuff, and especially before rushing off to DRN. There's quite a bit there so perhaps it's best if I address what you've said point by point:

"I thought you said Wikipedia wasn't a valid source for that information -- suddenly you are using it?" - Wikipedia articles can't be used as references, which is what I actually said,[2] For the purpose of counting up the number of times that a particular writer is cited as having written an episode, it's perfectly acceptable. I was the person who originally cleaned up the episode list and then split out the season articles; I've had the articles on my watchlist since then and the episode list since early 2009. I'm confident that the list is accurate but that's not necessary, as all of the content is easily verifiable.

"aside from the fact that doesn't contain Binder's latest episodes" - Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's a core policies requires that all content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. We can only go by what is verifiable and that means limiting any claims to the first 221 episodes, as they are the only episodes that can be verified at this time.

"The original claim was that Binder wrote more episodes than any other single writer." - Yes, and the claim was sourced to a Wikipedia article, which was inappropriate, and is why I reverted the edit. You then changed the claim to "is credited on-screen as having written more episodes than any other single writer", which you tried to support with a link to Amazon. As I explained when I removed the citation, it doesn't mention Binder, so it can't be used to support the claim. It can only be used to support the existence of the DVD sets, but not that Binder "is credited on-screen as having written more episodes than any other single writer".

"Frank Cardea and George Schenck are TWO writers who are an official WRITING TEAM and have co-written every single script they've ever written. In other words, they are not a "single" writer." - Since they are not siamese twins, they are regarded as individuals, ie single writers, at least as far as Wikipedia:Verifiability is concerned. In order to support your argument you need a citation directly supporting your claim. Those are the rules we have to follow, and those rules are more rigidly adhered to in biographical articles than we might do in other types of articles. You might note that Binder has co-written ten episodes so, using your logic, we can't include those in the "single writer" claim. He's only written 19 episodes as a "single writer", using your definition.

"Binder is co-credited a on few, yes (and so are most of the other writers) - but that wasn't even as a team, that was still as a single writer" - As I have said, we can only go with what is verifiable, the press releases and the episodes themselves do not suppot that claim.

"check the WGA website for the difference between multiple single writers and a "bona fide writing team"" - Wikipedia tends to follow the common definitions with organisation specific jargon kept to a minimum. Many organisations have their own definitions - When I was in the military the term "Panduit strap" was widely used because Panduit was almost the exclusive supplier of what are now commonly called cable ties.

"Either way, Binder has written, by far, more episodes than any other single writer - which, if you check, was what was originally written. The only one who comes close is Jesse Stern -- a writer who came long after Binder, by the time the show was already established -- and left long before Binder - who is still there" - This is the sort of thing we try to avoid. Such information is confusing at best, which is why we include only what is verifiable. If anyone does a count as I did, the conclusion is the same, Frank Cardea and George Schenck have written more episodes than Bider has. If you want to include the claim it needs to be cited with a source that explicitly supports the claim.

"That is an apples & oranges argument. A poem is"... (etc) - You're getting off the track here. The whole point of that part of the discussion was opposition to "voted America's favorite TV show of all time in a 2011 Harris poll". Biographical articles should concentrate on information specific to the subject and while it may be true that a poll of 0.000755406% of America's population determined that NCIS was America's favourite TV show of all time, it's not directly relevant to Binder unless a direct link can be shown between the show's popularity and his involvement.

"First of all, nothing about the original post claimed that NCIS' success is directly attributable to Binder" - Then what point is there in including it? It tells us nothing about Binder, except that he lucked out when they were hiring. By all means chuck it in the NCIS article (the relevance of a vote by such a small group is another discussion), but it doesn't belong here.

"please take a second look at whether you are being objective" - Please don't make silly accusations. I wouldn't know Binder from a bar of soap. My aim here is simply to ensure that a biographical article on Wikipedia is written in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Given your username, which looks like you are representing a company, and the fact that ALL of your edits to date regard this article, it's not me that has to worry about being objective.

"not just any show, but the most popular show of all time." - well, the most popular show in a group of 2,379 Americans - There's no evidence that the other 7,058,274,774 residents of this world agree with that belief. You need to be at least a little objective.

"Since no specific claim was made about Binder's responsibility to the success of the show, no source is required." - Good! So since there is no claim that Binder was responsible for NCIS' success, why do we need to mention the success of the show? All we need to say is that he writes for the show. Nothing more.

"And he doesn't have to be credited that way." - If you make the claim that he is credited that way, he does have to be credited that way or else you're adding false information to the article.

"First of all, it is against Wikipedia policy to directly copy the words from a source" - Yes, thank you, I do know that. I revert copyright violations daily. Nobody was suggesting that we should directly copy from a source.

"If I said there were 156 shuttle missions -- it is more than enough to link to a list of all the shuttle missions." - Indeed it is, but you can't use List of space shuttle missions as a reference, as you did with List of NCIS episodes in this edit, and List of space shuttle missions has to support the claim that there are 156 missions, which it does not. Similarly, if you go to List of NCIS episodes and count the number of times that "Steven Binder" appears, it does not support the claim that he wrote more episodes than anyone else.

"You didn't revert to the "pre-disputed edits" at all" - I reverted to this revision. At that time your only edits to this article had resulted in these changes. I don't have a problem with those, so they are not disputed. Two of your edits had been reverted. The first was use of List of NCIS episodes as a reference.[3] WP:NOTRS says "Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Unless I'm missing something, you haven't disputed that and, in any case, it would be pointless to do so as it is something that has wide consensus. The second reversion was regarding his birthplace.[4] Again, you haven't disputed that. That too was wise because the first citation in the article identifies him as a native of Northbrook.[5] Chicago was correct, but Northbrook is more correct. I really don't see the issue here.

"The problem here is, you also have been doing EXACTLY that. You had an edit that was in good-faith reverted, and you simply reinstate based on inaccurate information" - The actual problem started here. You made edits that were good faith reverted here WP:STATUSQUO applies to this edit. That's the edit that, as per WP:STATUSQUO, you should not have reinstated. You should have left the article as it was and come to the talk page then. There is only one status quo. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)