Talk:Nick Turse

Neutrality

Much of this article is taken from press releases. Furthermore, Nick Turse and user Dlv999, who made significant contributions to this article, are the same person: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Dlv999/Nick_Turse

It would be good to have some balance in this article. 76.14.66.186 (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh?!

I'm not Nick Turse. My first edit to this page was 4 days ago. I felt like the article needed some major surgery so I copied the page to my userspace so I could play around with the layout without messing up the live page. Dlv999 (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My bad. I'll remove the first source tag. 76.14.66.186 (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Checked for neutrality and found nothing wrong. Removed that sticker of shame. If you think that it was a mistake, feel free to put it back, but make sure to provide some JUSTIFICATION other than just saying that I am Michael Jackson! --Murus (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Columbine

Why was the following removed? It is cited. It's certainly an unusual take on the Columbine Massacre. Chisme (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Columbine High School Massacre as "Revolutionary Task"

In the winter 2000 issue of the academic journal 49th parallel, Nicholas Turse wrote of the Columbine High School massacre: "Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold may be the Mark Rudd and Abbie Hoffman figures of today." Turse wrote:

Who would not concede that terrorizing the American machine, at the very site where it exerts its most powerful influence, is a truly revolutionary task? To be inarticulate about your goals, even to not understand them, does not negate their existence. Approve or disapprove of their methods, vilify them as miscreants, but don’t dare disregard these modern radicals as anything less than the latest incarnation of disaffected insurgents waging the ongoing American revolution.

I don't see any evidence from the citation that the piece would constitute a "significant work" meriting inclusion in the article. It was a piece written when he was a graduate student, not the sort of thing you would normally expect to see in an encyclopedia article. Of course if you can find sources that indicate its notability I would have no problem with inclusion, but the current citation does not indicate that to me. Dlv999 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not one of his major works -- like a book or commissioned article. But it is significant because it's such an unusual (and maybe revealing) opinion about the Columbine massacre. What would "indicate its notability"? If a writer or opinion maker commented on it, it would mean that the piece is notable to that writer or opinion maker, right? I just need to know what your idea of "notability" is. Chisme (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see a secondary source discussing is it as evidence that it is relevant to an encyclopedic article on the topic. The citation on its own indicates that it is an article from an obscure journal written when the author was a grad student - which would indicate to me that it is not significant for discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I don't think the journal is "obscure." The journal, 49th Parallel: An Interdisciplinary Journal of North American Studies, is published out of the American and Canadian Studies Dept. of the University of Burmingham in England. This is an academic journal, the kind that professors and grad students clamor to get their work in so they can be published and advance their careers. Turse's article in the the journal was peer reviewed. Second, this source did comment on it, albeit critically, so it was discussed by a secondary source. Respectfully, I think this should go in the article. It is noteworthy. Chisme (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Here I did your work for you [1] Dlv999 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing my work! I'm going to reinclude this. Chisme (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep it! I don't agree with Nick Turse on Columbine, that's for sure. Actually, this episode has nothing to do with his exposure of war crimes in Vietnam, which is why everybody currently likes or hates him. However, I am for keeping this sub-section. Nick is a young fella, he has a whole life ahead, and that will teach him a lesson that every man is a master of the unspoken word, and a slave of every spoken or written one (especially on Wikipedia). Gotta go, but come back to finish clean-up. --Murus (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Here in October this is being discussed again. The consensus was reached last March. Please respect earlier editors' opinions. 76.14.66.186 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This should remain. It was debated and resolved. Chisme (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

References

COI edits by Readerfix and 76.31.97.54

Readerfix (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

76.31.97.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Users Readerfix and 76.31.97.54, who are one and the same person, have cluttered this article with extraneous material touting the subject. Seeing as much of this material is taken from the subject's website, I think there is a conflict of interest here. If these edits continue, I would like to take this to [Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard] Chisme (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If these recent edits by User:Readerfix add entire verbatim text passages onto the article page with just a TomDispatch.com blog citation, they don't belong here and need to be deleted. This is not a secondary source as material published in the mainstream press would be, besides the stated fact that the writer is a managing editor of Tom.Dispatch.com. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A biographical article is not supposed to be a place to note every article a person has written or a review of every book they've written. This article should be cut way down and most of the primary sources removed. Bahooka (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost none of this material is from the author's website which actually appears to be long out of date. Only a few of the author's writings are listed on this page, not "every article" or "review of every book." Why not delete the whole thing if you don't want detail? Readerfix (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Tomdispatch is mainstream media. Articles are republished in mainstream outlets all the time (ex. http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=tomdispatch&target=adv_all&date=&sortby=display_time+descending) It's affiliated with The Nation magazine and publishes only well-known, respected authors.Readerfix (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of these articles are either written by Turse or published by him. As associate editor and research director, Tomdispatch is basically a WP:SPS of Turse, including reprints of TomDispatch articles in Salon. Third-party references about Turse would be more reliable sources and be more notable. Also, there is an appropriate level of content between overly detailed and being deleted. Bahooka (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Chronology of investigations

As this is a biographical article, the material under section heading Investigations needs to be in chronological order. Numerous entries don't indicate this at all, perhaps only indicated in the citations? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. I attempted to use publication dates, even if the only citation is of a TomDispatch.com weblog entry and not mainstream media. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Tomdispatch is mainstream media. Articles are republished in mainstream outlets all the time (ex. http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=tomdispatch&target=adv_all&date=&sortby=display_time+descending) It's affiliated with The Nation magazine and publishes only well-known, respected authors.Readerfix (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this information; I had neglected to read the credentials of TomDispatch.com. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

Size of articles for well-known journalists:

• Carl Bernstein: 15,457 bytes
• Benjamin C. Bradlee: 25,661 bytes
• Ed Bradley: 12,900 bytes
• David Brinkley: 16,596 bytes
• Thomas Friedman: 45,066 bytes
• Martha Gellhorn: 17,982 bytes
• Linda Greenhouse: 19,547 bytes
• David Halberstam: 23,404 bytes
• Seymour Hersh: 46,826 bytes
• Peter Jennings: 84,814 bytes
• Ted Koppel: 14,942 bytes
• Anthony Lewis: 18,512 bytes
• Walter Lippmann: 18,543 bytes
• Bill Moyers: 46,017 bytes
• Edward R. Murrow: 44,368 bytes
• Neil Sheehan: 8,049 bytes
• James B. Steele: 22,581 bytes
• Theodore H. White: 15,711 bytes
• Walter Winchell: 20,717 bytes
• Bob Woodward: 42,185 bytes
• Average: 27,994 bytes

Size of article for journalist who runs a blog no one has ever heard of:

• Nick Turse: 47,183 bytes

I've tried adjusting the excessive detail and fluff accordingly, but the single-purpose COI account keeps adding material. Nick Turse needs to be more terse. 70.134.227.120 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture? Lots. This article is a mess. 76.14.66.186 (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's terrible. It's articles like this that give Wikipedia a bad name. 70.134.227.120 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The above table provides an interesting basis for comparison, though the alphabetical order and simple "average" make it less instructive considering the wide range. (I would reorder it by descending size.) I agree that trimming of excessive detail would improve the article, and have just now commented on User talk:Readerfix#Nick Tulse to this effect.-- Deborahjay (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

How about we all take a break and reread WP:Biographies of living persons

The only thing what it is, Nick Turse's bio is not a space for boosting somebody's ego as it happens, right here, right now. I think that Nick is laughing reading all this crap on his talk page, and currently writes an entry for his blog where he depicts us, the so-called wikipedia editors, as mumbling fools (Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 5). To stop him from doing that everybody should better start thinking and acting constructively as adults are supposed to be doing! What would I most humbly suggest:

• Kill Anything That Moves deserves a separate page
• Columbine quote can be moved to that shooting's page.
• And finally, my dear friend and beloved colleague Chisme can actually stop playing a WP-foreman and Nick Turse's grand basher, and, f.e., start instead fixing the citations as indicated in:

With warmest regards, --Murus (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate your attention to this article and to your even-handed suggestions for improvement. I would respectfully disagree with your suggestion to put the Columbine quote in the Columbine article. Because the quote comes from a little-known, probably little-read journal that covers a broad spectrum of content, it seems tangential to the Columbine article. It does, however, represent and illuminate the thinking and attitudes of Turse, the subject of this article, and therefore adds important information for those who want to know more about Turse's positions. I think the quote has been twisted, distorted, and taken out of context for pointed reasons. I've tried to fairly represent the gist of Turse's essay, its placement in a journal forum, and the responses of the other forum members. 75.0.192.91 (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply, dear 75.0.192.91! I trust your judgment since I did not read that essay in full and cannot serve as an expert here, and, as we know, everything taken out of context can be twisted and sold for gold! Best wishes, --Murus (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your first suggestion: the Kill Anything That Moves section alone is, frankly, garbage. For example, in just one paragraph, the second last in that section, there are missing quotation marks everywhere and half the quotes don't even appear in the cited source. The article as a whole is bloated beyond imagination, but this section is the worst offender. I think there's a case to be made for having a separate article for the book, but I also think the current section can be cut down significantly without losing much of value. ZyraReflex (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess, everybody has read WP:Biographies of living persons by now

In a nutshell, a bio of a living person is not an exercise in promotion or dissing. As I write, WP lawyers are busy trying to placate a bunch of irritated people and their lawyers who are suing WP in a court of law for defamation, you, people, should really start reading The Signpost. So, 'DO NO HARM' should be our guiding star! All questionable material that can be interpreted as an intention to degrade somebody should be mercifully cut out. About dissing, scientists found out recently that poop-throwing by chimps can be a sign of intelligence[2], but I am not sure if this is also applicable to Wikipedia editors. About promotion, this is more tricky, since any information can be called promotional, so, please, kindly prove your claim here, on a talk page. And, last but not least, thank you, buddy Chisme, for fixing those references, and now that luggage sticker can be taken away. If you will find more stuff of that nature in the future, please, go head and fix it right away! Thank you! Regards to all, --Murus (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No one has touched this article in 10 years. It appears that objections have been met. I am therefore removing the decade-old tag. Skywriter (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)