Jump to content

Talk:Brad Cohen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old comment

[edit]
  • This article needs to be rewritten with regards to encyclopedic tone and NPOV (eg. not saying things are "unfair", no rhetorical questions, etc...). Overall, pretty well written though. Wickethewok 03:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

[edit]

I'm not sure on our policy on Youtube links, so putting a clip showing the real Brad here:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia

[edit]

Just for you, FYI:

Here is the text from the article that I cited:

"Brad Cohen, 18, is a recent graduate of Parkway Central High School. He was honored for his work as an president of St. Louis Aleph Zadik Aleph, where he coordinates many community service projects. Brad has organized projects with Habitat for Humanity, Judevine Center, Salvation Army and Shriners Hospital. He's international chairperson of B'nai B'rith Youth Organization's ACT, which stands for Actively Concerned Teens and is involved in everything from voter registration to seat-belt laws.
As someone with Tourette Syndrome, Brad shows how much people with special needs can accomplish. He inspires other teens to volunteer."

4.240.78.180 (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what confused me is p. 84 (of the paperback) says he was twice elected President of the St. Louis Council, while p. 89 says he lost the election "for president of BBYO". I'm unclear on the difference, and how "St. Louis Aleph Zadik Aleph" relates. Is that the "St. Louis Council" referred to in the book? I was concerned that he specifically says he lost the election to president of BBYO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the book, so I can't compare. But maybe he did lose the race for president of the BBYO, but won/was-selected to the position of international chairperson of ACT. I would ask the BBYO if this is a separate position (which I think it is). I don't know if AZA is the same as "the Council", might have to clarify with the AZA?
It is funny about how things get messed up. I read three different articles about when his mother discovered the Tourettes, one said when he was 11, the next article said 12, and the third said 13. You have to think that all these articles the writer/reporter ask Mr. Cohen, so how do they come up with three different years? It has to be a certain day that it happened. - 4.240.78.180 (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed the same problem here about the ages, but I haven't found an exact age in the book. I'm still trying to figure out how to fudge that in relation to the sources. Any help you can give on sorting out the St. Louis Council president situation would help. Actually, I should copy this entire discussion over to Talk:Brad Cohen so we can continue it there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmark movie

[edit]

I was very happy to discover that this article already has a substantial section on the Hallmark movie, and I've created a redirect page (with full categories) at Front of the Class (film). After looking over the section again, I actually think there's more than enough material there to justify moving it to Front of the Class (film), leaving behind a summary and main article link. However, I wasn't about to do that without discussing it here first. So please let me know if there are any serious objections. I'll check back in a couple of days. Nice work on the article! Cgingold (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was keeping it together so I'd have less to maintain, because I was (frankly) worried that we would have a huge coprolalia-related vandal fighting day when the movie aired. My concerns were not realized, and I see no problem with having the separate Film article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll take care of moving it in the next couple of days Cgingold (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if you work on Films, perhaps you can also beef up I Have Tourette's But Tourette's Doesn't Have Me; I've gotten a solid, sourced structure in place for each, but just don't have time to take them to a higher level. For example, I don't know how to upload the non-free images that could be used on each film article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done much work on Films, so I'm afraid I'm no help on uploading non-free images. Cgingold (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I'm concerned about the changes made to Category:Tourette syndrome, and wish those new additions would be reversed. I've intentionally kept everything in one category, to try to avoid and be able to monitor tic-related vandalism, additions and jokes. There are only three notable TS organizations, so a separate category isn't needed, and creating one is a setup for edit warriors and joke additions that will be harder to monitor. The People with TS category has the potential to become an even bigger problem, and will need constant monitoring. I believe categories like that have always ended up deleted, so these changes introduce potential for controversy, BLP issues, and for the categories to end up deleted. I wish those had been left in one category. The people category is likely to draw attention and be populated with jokes, causing BLP issues, and eventually end up deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created Category:People with Tourette syndrome is two-fold: it gives readers access through Category:People by medical or psychological condition, and it separates out those people who suffer from Tourette's from the other people who are listed in Category:Tourette syndrome because they carried out research, etc. I don't think there's any serious likelihood of it being deleted, because it's a serious, life-altering condition, and it's not a subjective category because it's only for diagnosed cases. I'll try to keep an eye out for juvenile vandalism, but in my experience the vast majority of such vandals completely ignore the categories, so I think your concerns may be unwarranted in that regard. As for the TS organizations, as with the "People with TS" category, it gives readers access through the Category:Medical and health organizations structure. Hope that helps! Cgingold (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, but I hope you'll help watch these categories for vandalism and uncited or medically incorrect additions. Perhaps along the way, you'll also read the Tourette syndrome article and avoid incorrect, loaded phrasing like "people who suffer from" and misperceptions like "serious, life-altering condition". Most people with TS don't "suffer", it's not often a serious condition, and it's rarely life-altering. Thanks for the work on the categories and article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about language, Sandy, and I would have phrased things a little more carefully for an article on the subject. Just so you know, I've been very familiar with TS for quite a long time. By way of explanation, it's "serious" in the sense that it's not a "trivial" condition, which would result in deletion of the category. It's "life altering" simply in the sense that a person's life experience is different than it would have been otherwise. But I quite agree that running them together like that ("serious, life-altering condition") sounds overly dramatic, which wasn't what I intended. I suppose "suffer from Tourette's" is inartfully worded, since it's not direct suffering from the condition itself, but rather indirect suffering, as a result of the reactions it provokes. I suspect we're basically on the same page on all of this. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to "see also" and "references"

[edit]

I've undone the changes to add a "see also" section and turn the "bibliography" into "references. Here are the changes I removed:

See also
References

Generally, a "see also" section is discouraged. Perhaps Teacher of the Year should be wikilinked where mentioned in text but I'm not sure if the national award is related to the state award. Someone else can decide that. I fail to see what Epilepsy, Huntington's disease, Autism and Down Syndrome have to do with Brad Cohen.

The Bibliography section contained a book that I assume was not used as a reference; otherwise it would have been named the References section. Changing the name of the section to References, and adding two more online links, doesn't seem justified if no article text uses those as sources. The first link appears to be a TV review, which doesn't sound important enough to be an External Link. The second might be a reliable source for the text in the article about the movie, but doesn't itself seem significant enough to be an External Link. Colin°Talk 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The see-also section is quite typical in Wikipedia articles; as noted in Wikipedia:Guide to layout. In general, the References section should list the complete titles of documents to be cited in the Notes section, along with other footnotes. By placing webpages into the References section, then the long URL specs do not need to appear in the ref-tag footnotes, which tend to clutter the text. The entries in the See-also section link to tangent topics: if they weren't tangents, then they would already appear in the text, thus the related issues of epilepsy, Huntington's disease, etc. I have indented the footnotes, using the concept of graphical separation from computer software, to help clarify the upper-level text against the embedded footnotes. There isn't much emphasis on pruning external links in a small article, where any documents to help verify the text could be a major benefit. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that Cohen and Wysocky was used as a source and indeed should have gone into the general References section. Fussell is only used once so I can't see any benefit of repeating/expanding on its citation in the references section (it is just an article, not a book). The Hallmark.com "reference" doesn't appear to be used at all, so it shouldn't be listed as a source.
I am still at a loss to see what Epilepsy, Huntington's disease, Autism and Down Syndrome have to do with this guy. There are hundreds of neurological diseases. It that your only "tangential" link? BTW: what is "typical" doesn't imply "good". Colin°Talk 13:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted again; these changes are almost all ill-considered in my opinion. Completely unrelated 'See also' links are unhelpful to readers, and most certainly not supported by WP:LAYOUT. Why would you convert perfectly normal month-day-year formatted dates into unreadable ISO dates? Why change the precisely named 'References' section (which indicates sources used) to the ambiguously named 'Bibliography' (which could refer equally to books about the topic as well as books used)? Other changes in that edit were also inconsistent with MOS and LAYOUT, such as the inline 'see below:References' note and the seemingly random abbreviation of one month but not others. I appreciate your taking the time to try to improve the article, but I don't see these edits as beneficial. Maralia (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with the changes introduced, and support the revert. None of those links added to See also have any relevance to this article; See also is sometimes used for items that could eventually be linked in to the article, and those links have no place in this article. Per WP:LAYOUT, the see also is not needed. Refs look good now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

How does Front of the Class (film) meet our film notability guidelines at WP:NOTFILM? It needs to meet one of the following:

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

  1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
  2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
    • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
    • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[1]
    • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
    • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
  3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[2]
  4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[3]
  5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

To my knowledge, it does not, and no citations other than IMDB were provided. I have removed the redirect, and will prod the article in a few days unless notability is established. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've queried Erik (talk · contribs), a film editor,[1] and will ping the editor who created the article. Perhaps these two sources can be used to establish notability:
They are the only sources I'm aware of that are not related to the topic (eg, from the Tourette Syndrome Association. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Erik found more sources, and thinks it meets notability, so I'll begin to do the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Variety has a review as well here. (The non-printer friendly URL will not be visible.) I think this is new, too -- from the Pittsburgh Tribune or Gannett News Service. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Erik-- I started working on the article, but was interrupted, so I'll return to those a bit later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Examples would include the Sight and Sound Poll, AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, Time Out Centenary of Cinema, 1999 Village Voice Critics Poll, Positif's poll, etc.
  2. ^ This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete. Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that an Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included. Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected fit our standard as well.
  3. ^ See The United States National Film Registry for one example. Any nation with a comparable archive would equally meet our standards.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brad Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brad Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brad_Cohen&oldid=1257542356"