Talk:Daniel Coburn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daniel Coburn article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

• There is a lot of information here that was POV or unverified. This article needs major cleanup. I corrected basic errors, but had to erase a lot of information because it was POV. Also, this article does not conform to WP:BIO standards. -- Metromoxie 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Anything notable is covered at Ilario Pantano. Could we move some of the content pertaining to the trial there and delete the rest? Looks like it needs AfD.
  • I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to just redirect this page to Ilario Pantano.

Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation for article cull

I reduced the article to a couple sentences due to it being source-free. From WP:CITE:

Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

In the case of this article, deleting unsourced content (as opposed to merely using {{fact}} tags) is especially critical due to WP:BLP:

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.

Finally, a quote from our fearless leader:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimbo Wales

I am not disputing the truth of the sentences I removed. However, the need for citations--especially for negative statements--trumps all other considerations on BLPs. I hope this clears up any confusion concerning my actions. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay.

References provided.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)