Talk:Nicholas De Genova

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Low-importance).

un/poorly sourced materials

Removed Historicist's edits which are unverifiable. Please refer to WP:V before adding material in the future. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sigh the content that User:GrizzledOldMan removed contianed discussions of de Genova in the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Columbia Daily Spectator. Of course it can be verified.Historicist (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a part that was not cited at all - saying that he was listed in someone's book as one of the "101 Most Dangerous Academics in America", and the purported reason why he was, would need a source other than the book itself. We can't attach that tag to all 101 academics; we need secondary sourcing to establish weight and relevance. Incidentally, the citations are not complete or formatted properly. Anyone who regularly edits articles needs to learn the {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web},} and similar citation templates. Without a full citation, and in this case some link or proof, I don't think we can accept on faith that the source is reliable or says what it is claimed to say. Wikidemon (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicholas de Genova. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303172520/http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/20/herb_denenberg/doc4975a46fde30d964905359.txt to http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/20/herb_denenberg/doc4975a46fde30d964905359.txt

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) 15:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How current is currently?

The statement that De Genova was "currently" working on a memoir is based on an undated page on his own website. Setting aside for the moment whether his site is a valid source, I feel editors err when they put in articles vague words like currently, recently, now, etc. and leave them in for perpetuity. In this case, the line was added in July of 2009, and now, 11 years later, I find no such book that has been published. That's a current of very low amperage. This is not an attack on De Genova, as I'm much closer to his perspective than I am to those who do attack him. This is just about clarifying the article. Accordingly, I am changing that sentence. Dgndenver (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

seems reasonable - De Genova is one of those people that was sort of in the news 2000-2005 but is now a bit more of a footnote of history. Jjazz76 (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balance and sources

The article needs overhauling. The page reads like coverage of the 'Million Mogadishus' incident with a little bit about De Genova himself. Lots of unsourced fact statements in the article that need backing up. Would also be good to actually outline his research and work more. I'm going to work on this now, but wanted to post here in case other editors would like to get involved. I also anticipate that trying to edit the Million Mogadishus incident will likely need some discussion. Boredintheevening (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]