Draft talk:David Gamage

Resolved. Thanks!

JDtoBee (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

TaxProf Blog should not be used for BLPs

Per several discussions on the Reliable Sources Notice Board regarding the use of TaxProf Blog for BLPs, there is "consensus that the site is a SPS for tax law and accounting issues but not for specific claims about a living person." It should not be used to back up claims about a person, especially a living person. These will be removed, along with the associated content. Please use WP:RS only, not blogs or low-quality sources, and the guidelines at WP:BLP apply. Netherzone (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I will replace the TaxProf Blog cites with other sources or else will remove the content. Thanks! JDtoBee (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, please read WP:RS for guidance on what constitutes a reliable source for the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I see now that blogs are not acceptable sources. I was not previously aware of this. JDtoBee (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

COI

The article was written in a promotional, advertorial tone mainly by single purpose accounts WP:SPA, it may be an autobiography. WP:COI applies. Netherzone (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I have asked Netherzone multiple times to provide any specifics on why they think a promotional advertorial tone is used. I believe the tone and style here is exactly the same as for other professor entries, like, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Saez#:~:text=Emmanuel%20Saez%20(born%20November%2026,and%20rich%20around%20the%20world.

I request again that Netherzone (or anyone else) explain or support this claim with any specifics. I believe Netherzone is being inappropriate and antagonistic in responses to me and I would like to request a moderator to intervene. JDtoBee (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I further note that I did not create this article or most of the content, but I have been editing it and I am trying to learn how to edit better and would appreciate helpful and specific guidance. JDtoBee (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone@JDtoBee Given the concerns expressed here, I have moved this back to draft (Draft:David Gamage) so the appropriate improvements can be made. S0091 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This is very discouraging. Could one of you please provide any specifics about what you think the issues are? JDtoBee (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@JDtoBee first you need to address the COI concerns raised. S0091 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not have any conflicts of interest, as I have now explained multiple times. I am a student in the field of tax law, but I am not connected to the professor in the article in any way, and being a student in the field is not a conflict of interest. I do not understand why I am being accused. I did not write or create the article and I do not know who did, I have only edited it. JDtoBee (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

See also User talk:JDtoBee#Managing a conflict of interest. @Netherzone I do not think this editor has a COI. Whether the creator, TaxLawProf, does is a different story but JDtoBee seems willing to address any issues. S0091 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@JDtoBee, I believe you may be misunderstanding the situation. I asked you a simple question, which is not unusual given the context nor was it antagonistic nor asked in bad faith. I simply, and politely, inquired if you had a connection to the subject of the article: I'm also wondering if you might have a connection to the subject of the article. I did not "accuse" you of anything. I noticed that the article was primarily written by several single purpose accounts in a promotional tone, rather than a neutral encyclopedic tone.

It does seem quite likely that the creator, TaxLawProf may have a COI given the user name and also that the blog, TaxProf Blog, had been used extensively as a source in the article.

Claims in BLPs need to be backed up by reliable sources (per WP criteria of what constitues a RS), otherwise that content should be removed. There are several discussion threads in the RSN archives about TaxProf Blog stating that is not considered reliable in relation to claims about living persons. In general, blogs are not considered reliable sources. See WP:BLP WP:NPOV, and WP:RS for basic information about how some things work on WP - it takes a while to understand the guidelines and policies. Returning it to draftspace, as S0091 has done, will allow for other reviewers to check the draft and help to resolve problems. Also, please understand that maintenance tags are not a "badge of shame", they are simply a "heads up" to experienced editors that an article has some issues that require attention and resolution – they are part of how article improvement works here. Netherzone (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I'm just trying to learn. I was mostly just trying to get clarification from you on the issues you were seeing. It appears you have removed most or all of the material you thought was problematic? I did not know that blogs generally or TaxProf Blog specifically were not valid sources. Thank you for explaining that to me. If there are any remaining issues that you perceive need to be fixed, can you please let me know what they are so I can try to fix them? It would be helpful if you could be more specific as general statements about tone without any specifics are hard for me to learn from or take action in regard to. Thanks again! JDtoBee (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

When you find a moment, please do read the links in the message above they will help. Also see WP:Writing better articles. Now that it is back in draft space, you and other editors can continue to improve it. Just make sure to write things in a totally neutral tone (think boring if you can manage it). Just state the most important facts without embellishment (BTW, the other article you had linked also has some promotional passages, so I would not suggest using that as a model.)

Make sure that the references (sources) you use are high quality, for example published newspapers, magazine, books. Chose sources that are secondary (meaning they are written by a neutral, unconnected person, like a journalist or historian), not by a colleague. Primary sources may be OK for certain things like the name of his spouse, but know that what is really needed for the purposes of the encyclopedia are things that others have written about him, not what he says about himself (primary source). Try to stay away from websites that contain "user-submitted content" (like blogs, directories, social media, newsletters, etc.) because they do not have an editorial board that vets content.

Re promotional tone, an example of a hypothetical non-neutral statement vs. neutral statement:

• Smith is a prominent physicist whose work is highly respected by his peers, he has been called one the ten most brilliant "geniuses" in his age group, for his critically important theory of superstrings in the universe. (non-neutral)

vs.

• Smith's research centers on physics, specifically on superstring theory. His work has been cited in several peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Superstrings and Blackholes. (neutral).

This is an exaggeration for emphasis, but please do note the difference in tone. Hope this helps! Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to take a break from all of this for a bit to clear my head, or maybe work on some other draft article if I can find anything that seems interesting to me. But I appreciate your advice and I plan to eventually return to fixing this article unless someone else does first. JDtoBee (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)