Talk:Tom Short

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tom Short article.
Article policies
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Articles for deletion 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.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Daniel Morgan blog

User Gatorgalen removed my insertion and citation because he claims the reference was "non-RS". However, the reference cited has been interviewed in newspapers for his research on campus preachers. Also, the information was a simple statement about a point which Tom Short raises in many campus settings wherein he claims that Hitler and evolutionary theory are related. Please enlighten me as to how "reliable" this reference probably is: http://media.www.nineronline.com/media/storage/paper971/news/2007/03/26/News/youre.Going.To.Hell.Says.Campus.Preachers-2790202.shtml Also, Gatorgalen is obviously biased because he is associated with Tom's Great Commission Association and NLCF skiddum 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)skiddum

I see that you are relatively new to Wikipedia, Skiddum. I assure you there was no bias in my removal of your addition. I in fact don't have a real problem with the info itself, but only with the source. (FYI, I'm not associated with NLCF, but rather with Gator Christian Life at UF). Read WP:RS. Blogs don't qualify as reliable sources. I understand that Daniel Morgan (is that you?) have been quoted in at least one paper. The one you put up seems borderline reliable as to its fact-checking; there was some obvious non-neutral stuff, poor journalism in that nineronline article. Regardless of how many he's cited in, blogs aren't accepable sources for Wikipedia. If this info is cited in a fact-checking RS, then we'll put that info in. It's a pretty simple policy, I was just doing a simple revert, no offense. Gatorgalen 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response and clarification. The point is that Daniel Morgan has written many articles on campus preachers, and has posted audio and video documentation of his encounters with them. According to the WP:RS article you cited, there is no a priori dismissal of a blog as a reliable source, and, given the guidelines, I think this information does not "red flag" for any reason. In point of fact, I have an email between the author of the article and Tom Short himself (with Tom's response), but again there is no way for you to verify its reliability without Tom assenting to it. For now, the add is simply not that important to the overall article, but it is a position of his that is just as "controversial" and thus worthy of mention as his views on gays (if not more so). skiddum 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)skiddum

[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)

According to my new understanding of NPoV, it seems a section about TS and law enforcement would not be PoV if worded properly with appropriate attribution. So shall it be. ClaudeReigns 07:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

NPoV concerns have now been corrected by the subject at User talk:Smee. Have modified what I can from his testimony, including removal of McKeldin Library pic (he insists it was Hornbake Library), correction to any possible misinterpretation of Rick Whitney quote, and even a rebuttal from within wikipedia of the Towson charges by Father Albright (I don't know if it will withstand WP policies on verifiable sourcing or reliability, but I felt it was my obligation to represent his unpublished response to criticism as per essay:criticism and WP:NPOV). Is my perception correct in that Short's claim depends upon our conceding that a Catholic priest has slandered him? As a Christian, I find it odd that Short would ignore 1st Timothy 5:19, especially when the original source represents the testimony of not only Father Albright but also the reporter(s) and editor(s) of The Towerlight. Xanthius should provide a linkable resource to verify this statement for everyone to peruse since it is in question. Further concerns on the part of the subject did not seem to me to warrant a change in the article due to uncertainty about or admission to published sources. In addition, it seems Short was attempting to pre-empt inclusion of his arrest or removal at Towson by claiming Towson later apologized for violating his rights. This is entirely unsourced, and the claim of the article was that Short was invited to return, provided he adhered to a registration policy. ClaudeReigns 07:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The text he is referring to comes from two separate newspaper articles, from two different papers. Here are scanned versions of these articles: [6] Xanthius 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for including those. At this point what remains is a phone call to Robert Albright to make sure he wasn't misquoted by The Towerlight and some form of assessment of the reliability of The Towerlight at that time. ClaudeReigns 08:27, 10 April 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).

[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).

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 [7] 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? [[8] —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 [9] 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)

[edit] Youtube

What an interesting edit. It definitely brings up an interesting question, maybe new territory. Does youtube fit with wikipedia? It seems to fit the rules regarding public pictures and stuff, since that's what youtube is meant for, only they're moving pictures. Certainly could help bring many articles to life, so to speak. Interested to hear others thoughts here. Gatorgalen 05:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

*Shrug* If the Chick Publications articles can have a link to Chick Tracts, I guess this can have a representational vid. The only problem I can see is these are promotionally edited, so if another from a third party becomes available, it should be used in favor. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, but I'll be darned if Tom Short isn't in the soapbox business. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)