Talk:F. King Alexander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New Information[edit]

A CSULB professor has published an online book about Alexander that provides a lot of new and relevant information: http://thugthebook.blogspot.com/2013/06/seven-b-biggest-academic-ponzi-scheme.html It would seem to be very reliable given that it's published by a university professor and contains all of its own supporting documentation.Pokey5945 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does not appear to be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and does not meet the requirements of WP:BLPSPS. It was written by a person suing the subject of this article. Bahooka (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I would ask the ORT editors to stop deleting my comment. It almost seems as if you have something to hide.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Do not make accusatory statements. User Pokey5945 fails to respond to the fact that link is not a verifiable source, and that author of linked blog is involved in an off-wiki controversy with the subject of the article. Link does not belong on this WP:BLP talk page. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP policy. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Upon further review, I now agree that "Thug: The Book" does not currently meet the RS standard for inclusion in the article. It does contain numerous primary source documents that are relevant to this article, but until they are used in a source that does meet WP:RS, they cannot be placed in this article due to the OR policy. There is no policy that prevents editors from discussing the relevance of this source on the Talk page, and it is entirely inappropriate for you to keep deleting the discussion.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page." WP:V--Aragorn8392 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Are we to infer that you're referring to "Thug: The Book", and arguing that it does not exist? Or what? Because no material from this book has been posted on either the talk page or the article. We are merely discussing the existence of the source and its usefulness for WP. Not a single word in this discussion is against policy.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anybody is saying that the blog doesn't exist (because that makes literally no sense), but that there are numerous reasons why it is not a valid source. You are completely incorrect in saying "not a single word in this discussion is against policy," as the link you keep posting is entirely objectionable. Because the source has been repeatedly invalidated and because it was specifically written to damage the reputation of a living person, it should not be discussed on the Talk page of a BLP WP:V, as per Wiki guidelines WP:BLPFIGHT. Your repeatedly posting the link to it serves no purpose other than to promote what one would naturally assume is your blog. To enumerate: 1.The author of the blog is suing the subject of the book, so it is not a valid reference. WP:RS 2.Self-published blogs (even if they are referred to as books) are not valid sources. WP:RS 3.If it is not related to the improvement of the article, it does not belong on the Talk page, especially if it violates Wiki policy in relation to Biographies of Living Persons. WP:BLP WP:TPO --Aragorn8392 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
First, I keep referring to the specific link ("Thug:The Book") only because you keep deleting it and calling it "the blog". Second, your interpretation of the BLP policy is bizarre and over-reaching. Your interpretation would prevent editors from discussing the usability of sources. If you think you can make a valid case for deleting links under discussion on Talk pages, then I suggest that you take this to the WP authorities. But until there is agreement from WP that posting sources is against policy, I will keep restoring my comments whenever you delete them. Third, please provide evidence for your claim that "Thug:The Book" "has been repeatedly invalidated." The site provides plenty of primary sources and links to support its claims. Finally, your allegation that "Thug:The Book" is my blog is false. I had not even read it when I first posted the link. Only after other editors pointed out RS issues with it did I even take a closer look. Your false, ad hominem accusations are a clear violation of policy. Those in glass houses, etc.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if you have already read WP:BLP I suggest you go back and read it again, because it will clarify what I am saying. Tell me how the link does not violate WP:BLP policy so I can understand where you are coming from. Specifically: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page." In what way or ways is that jeremiad that you call a book published by someone who is suing the subject of the article not qualifying as "poorly sourced?" To all appearances, it looks like you are just spamming with that link now. Also, I keep referring to it as a blog because the link suffix is .blogspot.com. I am not sure why you find the simple word association so perplexing. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
First, no material from that website has been entered either into the article or the talk page, thus obviating your complaint. Ergo, no policy violation. Second, I don't object to you calling the website a blog; I object to you deleting my comments.Pokey5945 (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The "material" is the link. I only deleted the parts of your comments that were spam. Stop spamming Talk pages with links to the same blog. The talk pages are for talking about ways to improve the article, not for posting external links promoting a blog. The blog is not a source that is germane to the improvement of the article because it is not a usable reference for reasons already discussed ad nauseum.WP:ELNO --Aragorn8392 (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Now you're making up rules, and new false allegations. Take it to arbitration and see if someone agrees with you.Pokey5945 (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Making up rules, or directly quoting WP policy and then providing you with the link to said policy/quote? What rules are being made up, and what are the false allegations? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you are not Brian Lane (the author of the blog) or his spouse or mother or someone like that, why are you spending so much time defending and promoting the blog? --Aragorn8392 (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not Brian Lane (it could hardly be the case that Pokey and I are both Brian Lane), and no-one is defending or promoting the link. One might just as well ask you the same sort of question: if you're not King Alexander, then what's your interest here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It's rather funny that you are replying to a question that I posed to another user name. So Pokey5945 is your other account, Nomoskedasticity? In any case, you also didn't really answer my question. I am not trying to out you, I was just asking why you were spending so much time defending and promoting the blog link. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
If you think that someone is using two or more accounts, you should file a complaint at WP:SPI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Aragorn8392 seems rather critical for someone that has been engaging in edit wars and whitewashing attempts on multiple articles. On the surface it would appear that the user has some type of conflict of interest involving the Oxford Round Table and shouldn't be editing articles related to the topic. BlueGold73 (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table Comment[edit]

I recommend removing the Oxford Round Table (ORT) section from this article. None of the references even mention Alexander's name. The references can be used at the ORT article, but do not seem appropriate at this BLP. Bahooka (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no question that Alexander is a principle in ORT. We just need better sourcing for this article.Pokey5945 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason for the oxford round table section to be included since we do not know his current affiliation and most of the contents are a few opinions from blog sites which do not even connect back to King Alexander. Not enough facts and is redundant to the actual (ORT) wikipage which could be simply linked to.Derekzoo (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The biographical page does not need an entire section devoted to the oxford round table when all that is needed is his affiliationa and a link to that page.24.15.29.81 (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Poorly sourced and irrelevant information removed[edit]

ORT section was removed because none of the articles cited mention F. King Alexander. Do not revert that edit before discussing it on the Talk page. Some mention of it may be included, but editors should first discuss verifiable sources. If there are no verifiable sources, that should not be included in the article. Thanks. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Poorly sourced and irrelevant information removed, don't link to poor source[edit]

ORT section was removed because none of the articles cited mention F. King Alexander. Do not revert that edit before discussing it on the Talk page. Some mention of it may be included, but editors should first discuss verifiable sources. If there are no verifiable sources, that should not be included in the article. Thanks.

The continuous reversions to Talk pages where the blog link is mentioned are not necessary. It makes it appear that the reverters are simply trying to promote the book by keeping it at the top of the talk page. "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page." The blog is not new information, it has been repeatedly discredited as a verifiable source.WP:V--Aragorn8392 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your assertion that "Thug: The Book" has been "discredited". And please stop deleting my comments. I will keep restoring them, and I have more stamina than you do.Pokey5945 (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Here you go: http://www.daily49er.com/news/2012/09/30/film-professor-appeals-possible-termination/
http://www.presstelegram.com/technology/20130219/cal-state-long-beach-professor-who-allegedly-misused-scholarship-money-to-step-down
It is not creditable because Brian Lane is involved in a significant off-wiki dispute with F. King Alexander after Lane was found to be stealing scholarship funds from students in the Film Department at CSU Long Beach. Lane sued Alexander for defamation (and then dropped the suit when Lane stopped paying his lawyer). Thus, Lane is not a reliable source of information on anything related to F. King Alexander. I don't really care a whit about your stamina, I just want to correct obvious examples of defamation and vandalism when I see them. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You haven't given any evidence that anything in Lane's website is incorrect. Alexander accuses Lane of stealing funds; Lane accuses Alexander of tax evasion and more -- who cares? It doesn't matter anyway, because I agree that it doesn't currently meet RS. That doesn't give you cause to delete my comments.Pokey5945 (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Alexander was only peripherally involved as an administrator in the case of Lane stealing scholarship funds. An impartial investigation of misappropriated funds is not really the same as a direct attack. Anyway, I don't object to your comments if they were to actually relate to the article (which they don't, because the link cannot be used as a source to improve the article), I object to your spamming Talk pages with the same blog link over and over. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If it's true that Lane misappropriate funds, that is hardly sufficient proof of the claim that his own assertions in "Thug" are untrue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems like this is all going over your head or that you are trying to steer the conversation in some other direction. The veracity of the blog is not relevant. An attempt to read it was met with a rather bad cluster headache because it reads like the diary of an angry 14-year-old. The primacy of the argument is that the Talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. The blog cannot be used to improve the article, because it was written by an angry person who sued the subject of the article, and the blog's only purpose is only to defame the article subject. Thus, its presence on the Talk pages violates WP:BLP and serves to spam WP pages with a ridiculous number of links to the same blog. WP:SPAMMER --Aragorn8392 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on F. King Alexander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)