Talk:Tom Short

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

Christianity Portal Tom Short is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

This article was nominated for deletion on January 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.

An entry from Tom Short appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 March 2007.

[edit] NPoV concerns

Please brainstorm material of interest to include which could better balance PoV. Basically any question you'd have about T.S. Again, there are many sources. ClaudeReigns 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at additional significators like number of campuses visited to include without relying on "peacocks." ClaudeReigns 11:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I'm concerned that the NPoV may have suffered a setback with the sudden inclusion of two more paragraphs of negative material. My next move will be to include reference to campus newspaper editors and articles which praise Short's contributions to free speech on campus after 1996. We should look very finely at the language so that there is no tolerance for weasel words. I'll take a look at my own use of quotation marks as well to make sure that there's no snarky connotation. ClaudeReigns 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but stirring up controversy is what this guy is famous for. His job is to basically go onto college campuses and make remarks that will rile up the audience, so given that there probably isn't going to be too much positive publicity on him. Xanthius 23:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is. Iowa State and Colorado State are two examples of schools that consistently give him good press. The Colorado State University Collegian even had an editorial from just about all its staffers saying what a service to free speech he was. I'll write it up and source it. "I do not think that word means what [I thought] it [meant]" obliquely paraprhased from Inigo Montoya. My bad. Perhaps someone with more sources could focus on his avid support from within the church. ClaudeReigns 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC) modified ClaudeReigns 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Solution Here's what I can do. Next week, Monday, I can drop a POV cleanup template on the article and ask editors to swing by and examine it. I also have new information about GC Bootcamp from a Faithwalkers speech [1] which can further clarify

• Short's reasoning for the necessity of Bootcamp and
• Perceived problems within higher education which Bootcamp addresses.

Unfortunately, I also have additional information that could be viewed as biased against Tom Short. I now have four college newspaper articles which demonstrate police presence and/or involvement at Tom Short's campus talks:

• Police oversight demonstrated in this photo [2]
• Police oversight described here [3]
• Police took away a student for reciting poetry loudly without a permit (Short had one) here [4]
• Police escort Short off one campus (with photos) here [5]

What is the most generous way the new information can be presented while still retaining the facts of each? Should I "be bold" and add now if I have NPoV concerns, or wait for peer review? Most importantly, how do I avoid the problem of a perceived 'bias in both directions' which was noted in the previous deleted version of the article? Wikipedia emphasizes its highest standards of NPoV with respect to biographies of living persons and we should strive to live up to them ClaudeReigns 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I just say?

How many sources do I need to establish Tom Short's notability? Did you see the Bootcamp video?? Not appropriate for merging with Great Commission Association or Manic Street Preachers.  :p ClaudeReigns 12:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• It was deleted, so we as non-Admins cannot know how many sources the prior incarnation of the article had. But I feel with 13 citations at this point notability has been established to survive a possible future AFD. We shall have to wait and see if that occurs... Smee 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
  • When I finally clicked the link to Manic Street Preachers I was ROTFLOL ClaudeReigns 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hehe. Still, the article could use a free image or fair use image of some sort, and of course always more citations and info backed up by reputable secondary sources is always good... Smee 07:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Contacted 3 college papers yesterday about using an image. No word yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClaudeReigns (talk • contribs)..

[edit] DYK hooks

Start thinking of a good "hook" from this article to submit to WP:DYK, especially if we get an image added to the article... Yours, Smee 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

• • DYK: Traveling evangelist Tom Short was forcibly ejected from the University of Maryland by communists?
  • DYK: Comments attributed to traveling evangelist Tom Short resulted in Texas A&M being labelled a Center of Hate?
  • DYK: Traveling evangelist Tom Short claimed to have reformed 20 homosexuals with his wife through love and prayer?
  • DYK: Traveling evangelist Tom Short once matched wits with the Cult Awareness Network?

Working on more. ClaudeReigns 14:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I picked the first one. We'll see how it goes. Can you put more info on the image page about the source of it, date, location, etc. ? Smee 07:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
  • You submit yet? "We'll see how it goes" doesn't sound very confident, and about what I'd expect just yet. Picture originated here [6] and its source is referenced verbally in the article. Flickr page is actual photographer licensing the picture through CC 2.0. ClaudeReigns 07:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel a little better now that I've added citations to some of the statements. I still feel as though the first one is least supported by RS. There are some sources online that actually take credit for smacking ol' Tom around, but I don't think they qualify for WP standards. ClaudeReigns 10:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution?

According to this, Scott Rank has a bias in favor of creationism. Could that mean the story about Short vs. the communists is merely apocryphal? [[7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClaudeReigns (talk • contribs).

Please point out any attribution weaknesses sofar. There are many many sources. ClaudeReigns 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copyedit

Looking at the article in response to a request by one of the editors, I tried to shorten it into a more effective article, particularly by reducing the duplication from the quotation, footnotes, and narrative.I will also try to see which of the remaining footnotes are necessary, and I think it will be a more effective article. I ask the eds. to sort out which of the somewhat contradictory set of categories at the bottom apply--but I removed some, as in general only the narrowest of a group is necessary. I've come to help, and I've gone, and please feel free to edit, and revert any and everything I did. It seemed like another voice might help, but nobody owns the article. DGG 01:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! ClaudeReigns 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Amazing Randi

Tom Short rated two mentions on randi.org [8] but is this worth mentioning at all?

He's got a Wikipedia article, so yeah, it might be noteworthy. Xanthius 16:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)