Talk:Hyman G. Rickover: Difference between revisions
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
You're mischaracterizing the circumstances, Grandpallama. I've edited the section to make it acceptable. HOW can we *possibly* otherwise reach consensus unless people see what's being proposed? In a vacuum...consensus...on what? --[[Special:Contributions/104.15.130.191|104.15.130.191]] ([[User talk:104.15.130.191|talk]]) 15:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
You're mischaracterizing the circumstances, Grandpallama. I've edited the section to make it acceptable. HOW can we *possibly* otherwise reach consensus unless people see what's being proposed? In a vacuum...consensus...on what? --[[Special:Contributions/104.15.130.191|104.15.130.191]] ([[User talk:104.15.130.191|talk]]) 15:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
:Your additions were discussed and rejected as recently as June. Instead of reinserting them repeatedly, make a case for their inclusion on the talkpage. That's how consensus works. Right now, consensus is ''against'' their inclusion, which is in no way a mischaracterization. Change folks' minds, or build a new consensus, but you cannot simply edit war them back in. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
:Your additions were discussed and rejected as recently as June. Instead of reinserting them repeatedly, make a case for their inclusion on the talkpage. That's how consensus works. Right now, consensus is ''against'' their inclusion, which is in no way a mischaracterization. Change folks' minds, or build a new consensus, but you cannot simply edit war them back in. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
::You're again mischaracterizing the situation. The information posted has been culled for miscellaneous info such as PhD dissertations and presidential library contents regarding the subject of the article. The information NOW posted is the bonafide, authored and published works by the subject of this biographic article. Tell me: What is your line of reasoning against including this? --[[Special:Contributions/104.15.130.191|104.15.130.191]] ([[User talk:104.15.130.191|talk]]) 16: |
::You're again mischaracterizing the situation. The information posted has been culled for miscellaneous info such as PhD dissertations and presidential library contents regarding the subject of the article. The information NOW posted is the bonafide, authored and published works by the subject of this biographic article. Tell me: What is your line of reasoning against including this? Moreover, why is it that I'm even having to spend one minute of my time justifying the inclusion of bonafide, authored, published works in a biographic article...? Is this anything close to common practice regarding biographies...? --[[Special:Contributions/104.15.130.191|104.15.130.191]] ([[User talk:104.15.130.191|talk]]) 16:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:22, 7 April 2021
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hyman G. Rickover article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Resources section
What's the point of this section? It looks like a dumping ground for someone's research project listing a boat-load of articles either written by Rickover or about Rickover and not very useful or conventional. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's unique, but so was Rickover, who continues to have articles and papers and books written about him in 2019...119 years after his birth. It's a comprehensive, encyclopedic list of resources for current and future students of Rickover and nuclear power, both military and civilian. Assume good faith, please. --67.48.200.162 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Toddst1 (talk) that the article shouldn't function as a "dumping ground" for a big long list of articles that aren't directly relevant to the article in question. Andrew Englehart (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @Andrew Englehart:. I don't see any reason to deviate from WP:NOTREPOSITORY, so I'm removing the section. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Toddst1 (talk) that the article shouldn't function as a "dumping ground" for a big long list of articles that aren't directly relevant to the article in question. Andrew Englehart (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I performed extensive cleans to this page a few years ago, as it had become riddled with hagiographical and rambling material, and faced opposition from a user in a very similar fashion to what is occurring now. I support continued attempts at cleans here, removing absurd sections like "Words of wisdom", or else this is going to just turn into a giant overly-detailed puff piece again. Palindromedairy (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Restored & expanded per citation. Two people do not form a "consensus" to delete this very encyclopedic section. Moreover, using pejoratives like "dumping ground" does not indicate clear & unbiased thinking. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, it's consensus and I have an opinion - hence I am biased. You did not have any support for its restoration and has been removed.
- I'll assert that my thinking is clear and we can do without the ad-hominem attacks.
- Note that 104.15.130.191 and 67.48.200.162 appear to be the same IP hopper from Austin Texas. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Culled the "Resources" section for its apparently offending material (Rickover-referencing PhD dissertations, presidential library references, etc.), and limited this content to Rickover's authored, published works and notable, published biographics. As a sidebar, I do not control my IP address (does anyone?). --104.15.130.191 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I see three editors (myself now included) specifically objecting to this inclusion, and a fourth editor opining that the article regularly attracts such editing. WP:ONUS requires achieving consensus for the inclusion of disputed material; repeatedly adding it back in over objections is textbook edit warring. Grandpallama (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
You're mischaracterizing the circumstances, Grandpallama. I've edited the section to make it acceptable. HOW can we *possibly* otherwise reach consensus unless people see what's being proposed? In a vacuum...consensus...on what? --104.15.130.191 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your additions were discussed and rejected as recently as June. Instead of reinserting them repeatedly, make a case for their inclusion on the talkpage. That's how consensus works. Right now, consensus is against their inclusion, which is in no way a mischaracterization. Change folks' minds, or build a new consensus, but you cannot simply edit war them back in. Grandpallama (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- You're again mischaracterizing the situation. The information posted has been culled for miscellaneous info such as PhD dissertations and presidential library contents regarding the subject of the article. The information NOW posted is the bonafide, authored and published works by the subject of this biographic article. Tell me: What is your line of reasoning against including this? Moreover, why is it that I'm even having to spend one minute of my time justifying the inclusion of bonafide, authored, published works in a biographic article...? Is this anything close to common practice regarding biographies...? --104.15.130.191 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (military) articles
- Mid-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles
- High-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- B-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class energy articles
- Low-importance energy articles
- B-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles