Jump to content

Talk:Danny Bubp

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

Myth Subsection

[edit]

I don't want to get into a big fight about this, but this because it is a single sentence it is why it is a subsection, as opposed to a section. If the problem is that it is a single sentence, we can write this compound sentence as two sentences.
I believe it should be separate from his biography, as this sentence does not directly relate to his biography. It corrects mis-information that is out there. --Asbl 19:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence, two sentences, it doesn't matter, subsections are totally unnecessary for such small bits of information, and as it directly relates to the matter being discussed immediately above it (the aftermath of Schmidt's comments), there is no reason for a heading to seperate the two paragraphs. I have rewritten the sentence to make the connection clear. Gamaliel 19:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I can live with this. --Asbl 20:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm glad we could figure this out. Gamaliel 05:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being in Iraq at the time of the controversy

[edit]

Why is that relevant to the point at all? Genuinely curious, because it doesn't seem to make a difference one way or the other to the point being made. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claims were made at the time that he was an Iraq veteran or in Iraq at the time the comments were made. Gamaliel (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that relevant? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not think it is relevant to the issue, but since the claims were made, the matter should be addressed here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So any claims made about Bubp should be noted? If so, are you opposed to referencing Limbaugh and Carlson directly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no objection to an appropriate reference. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears this is still an issue. You say it has relevant information, which information is it where the link is necessary? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bupb's biography only says that he was in Iraq at a certain time period. The other source says that he was definitely not in Iraq during the time period at issue. It is best to be thorough about such things, is it not? Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For certain, but the evidence being used in the piece is the same as the article, without added commentary. What is worthwhile about that commentary that it's worth using in a BLP? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same evidence. The first citation specifies that he was not in Iraq at the time of the controversy. The second citation only specifies that he was in Iraq later and makes no reference to the controversy (or I'm assuming that it does because that's what it said last time I read it, but it seems to be a broken link now). This may seem like hairsplitting, but it is important to get our citations and sources of information as exact as possible. Gamaliel (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the issue is that it's not really a controversy that a couple commentators said something, which is why it's hard to find good sourcing. The link you're restoring merely references what's already linked, it's duplicative while attacking. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show me what's duplicated, specifically? With quotes? Because I feel like I've been fairly clear about what the differences between the two sources are, and you keep repeating that they duplicate information. So I feel like we don't understand each other here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is "In discussing the incident, Rush Limbaugh[7] and Tucker Carlson[8] both claimed that Bubp was in Iraq when he spoke to Schmidt in 2005. Bubp was not in Iraq when he spoke to Schmidt in 2005, nor had he served in the Iraq war at the time of the controversy.[9] Bubp did serve in Iraq from November 2007 to November 2008.[10]" All of those claims are handled by 7, 8, and 9. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

before I respond in full, please clarify. Did you mean to write 7,8, and 10? Gamaliel (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I should drink my coffee before Wikipedia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've all had those days. So let me try to explain my position again. At issue are two sentences, not the whole passage.
A. Bubp was not in Iraq when he spoke to Schmidt in 2005, nor had he served in the Iraq war at the time of the controversy.[9]
B. Bubp did serve in Iraq from November 2007 to November 2008.[10]
It is my understanding that you claim that citation 10 covers both A and B. Is that correct? My contention is that citation 10 only covers the information in sentence B and not the information in sentence A, so as a result, citation 9 is necessary to cite the source of the information in sentence A.
Do you understand my argument? If not, please let me know instead of simply restating yours. It would also be helpful if you told me exactly how you disagree with this argument, such as a quotation from citation 10 factually disputing this argument. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand, but citation 10 need not cover the information in sentence A, as sentence A is covered by 7 and 8. That's the point of them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citations 7 and 8 are Limbaugh and Carlson. So are you saying that Limbaugh and Carlson provided factual information that disputed their own claims? That doesn't seem plausible. Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence A says that Limbaugh and Carlson claimed X. The sources are the Limbaugh program and a transcript of Carlson's program. 10 covers the rest, it shows when Bubp was in Iraq. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence A does not say that Limbaugh and Carlson claimed X. Their claim is in the previous sentence, which is not under dispute. Sentence A says that he was not in Iraq at the time of their claim, factual information which is not in citation 7, 8, or 10, only in citation 9. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I misunderstood what you meant by A, I didn't realize you were referring to lettering them out. A and B are both supported by 10. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we're on the same page, maybe, can you provide a quote from source 10 that provides the same information that source 9 does? It did not have this information when I read it when it was an active link. Gamaliel (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised the link stopped working in a week, but the archive clearly shows that it supports his being in Iraq only from 2007 to 2008. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding the archive link. For some reason I couldn't get the archive to give me a link. As far as the citation issue, there is clearly no text there about the Limbaugh/Carlson claim or about him not being there in 2005, which is precisely why we need citation 9. Gamaliel (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to, as the statement isn't about the "controversy" of what Carlson/Limbaugh said, but about when Bubp served. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that it does. Making extrapolations from primary sources violates WP:OR. We have a source, we've cited it, this is exactly what we should be doing according to WP policy. I really don't see any compelling reason to remove this source and rely on forbidden suppositions and extrapolations, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't see any extrapolations. Limbaugh is a primary source, granted: no one is disputing he said what he said. Carlson, same deal, uncontroversial. The House bio is not a primary source. We extrapolate nothing, as we're merely citing statements made and a historical record. If anything, the "original research" is the claiming of a controversy where none really exists, but I'm not arguing for removal at this point, simply use of proper sourcing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the proper sourcing is one that sources sentence A. Citation 10 does not reference the controversy nor does it comment on his activities or his non-presence in Iraq in 2005. To use it in this manner would violate WP:OR. Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence doesn't discuss a controversy, either, merely where he was when things were happening. Sentence A is sourced via the third party biography of Bubp, as it shows when he was in Iraq and how he was not in 2005. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence directly rebuts the claims made in the previous sentence by two living individuals. The bio page has nothing to do with this sentence and does not show that he was not in Iraq in 2005, and in any case we should not be using extrapolations from primary sources to rebut controversial claims by living individuals in such a manner. Gamaliel (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bio page actually has as much to do with the sentence as the link you want to include, as the MMfA link references a primary source, while the bio is a secondary. We can switch it to the archive of his campaign page if you prefer, but continuing to call the Ohio State bio a primary source appears incorrect, as does using a page that attacks living people to make a point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, a secondary source then, but not one that says what you claim it does. What point do you think I'm making here by trying to ensure things are properly sourced? Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what point you're making in using a poor source, to be honest. The secondary source we're speaking of does exactly what I claim it does: it shows when he was and was not in Iraq. You say "no, it doesn't," but fail to explain how it doesn't. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A poor source, perhaps, but a source nonetheless. The bio page doesn't show what you claim it does unless you make extrapolations prohibited by Wikipedia policy. I've explained this a thousand times. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what extrapolations you're seeing here. The claim is that Bubp wasn't in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, serving in 2007 and 2008. The source shows Bubp in Iraq in 2007 and 2008, and not in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His presence in 2007 does not prove his absence in 2005. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, his awards as a lawyer and judge, which is noted in his biography as what he did for the years of 2005-2006, do so. We could also use this local paper, which notes he was in office in 2005. And so on. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He could have easily returned from Iraq and then assumed a public office in the same year. Extrapolations and assumptions aside, you don't seem to be seeing my point, which is that we should not be using sources, primary or secondary, to construct rebuttals to the claims of others. That makes wikipedia a primary source doing original research, not a secondary one. Gamaliel (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which then leads back to the original question: why have the line at all, especially if all we're doing is bringing it up to shoot it down? That two pundits said something received no attention whatsoever, so why not just remove the whole thing if you feel it's constructed? Is there a good reason to have a detail that no one cares about? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those two have huge audiences, thus it was a widely circulated claim. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So everything they say is automatically worthy of note? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Danny Bubp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Danny Bubp. 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) 14:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danny Bubp. 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) 02:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danny_Bubp&oldid=1257322858"