Talk:James Wesley Rawles

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Too much first person account

This article relies too much on what Rawles says about himself, rather than third-party accounts for context and perspective. It needs to be edited to reduce quotes from him, as well as too much detail about book publishing history. This is unusual in terms of articles about writers.Parkwells (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This article was written by Jim Rawles. Please Mark for deletion - notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.77.167 (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even a cursory overview of the edit history would show that's not the case. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI Tag

I just noticed that someone added a Conflict of Interest tag to the top of this article. This article has been extant for ten years, and I only recently jumped in to correct some errors. Since I've only made edits to a few lines of this lengthy article, and since nearly every assertion in the article is well-sourced from print media publications (heavily footnoted), I do not agree that I'm "A major contributor to this article..." I respectfully request that this tag be removed. James Wesley, Rawles (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned COI flag has been up since December of 2015, without any legitimate justification. I again request that it be removed. James Wesley, Rawles (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been removed since there have been more than 1250 edits to the article and only 30ish have been you. However, it should go without saying that you should avoid editing it at all given your self-identified (and obvious) COI. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Wesley Rawles. 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) 11:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 9‎ § File:Signature of James Wesley, Rawles.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 9‎ § File:Signature of James Wesley, Rawles.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secret ranch location

Why does the article devote so much space to the supposedly secret location of Rawles? It feels like original research or a synthesis. Couldn’t we just summarize the sources briefly? Or just leave it out? I looked in the history. It was all added by a mysterious IPSpecial:Contributions/46.19.143.33. WestRiding24 (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS are. Everything was properly cited by reliable sources. What you removed actually does what you asked - summarizes the sources. You'd be better served to expand the weaker sections than remove one that is sourced by reliable sources unless there is a better reason to remove it. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t delete any sources, I just condensed the very lengthy recitation of speculation about his secret whereabouts. Was that summary incorrect? Why does this article need to spend so much space saying, in essence, “he doesn’t want people to know where he lives.” I don’t think I’ve seen another biography dwell so long on an unknown topic. It’s disproportionate. Don’t you think so? Why do we need three long quotations on the issue? If you want the material in the article the burden is on you to justify it all. WestRiding24 (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WestRiding24: FWIW, I don't object to condensing it. It also makes sense to move it into the section you moved it into rather than a standalone subsection. I'm saying find a happy medium. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across the biography of some rich guy or celebrity (can't remember), and it had a single line in the "Personal life" section. "Jones has homes in Palm Springs CA and Greenwich CT," or something like that. There's no "personal life" section here, though. If it deserves so much weight I suppose it's because it relates to his American Redoubt and Survivalism advocacy. That's why I thought one of those might be a better location. It could be: "He lives with his family on a ranch at an undisclosed location that he says is somewhere within the redoubt area, near a river and a national forest. He says they are almost self-sufficient with a three-year supply of food but have limited access to modern communications. He says that one of his reasons for privacy is his fear of being overrun by media and fans of his books in the event of a crisis." Does that summarize the main points sufficiently? WestRiding24 (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how it looks.[1] Fix it if it doesn't look OK. Thanks for your help. WestRiding24 (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks OK to me. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On another topic - The explanation of the comma in his name seems like a trivial affectation, unrelated to his notability. It'd be nice if we knew more, like when he started doing it or why. If we had a "Personal life" section it might go there. But IMHO it's too minor for the intro. I'm pretty sure he didn't start during his "Early life and military career". The other segment of his life is covered in "Journalism and writing career". Any objection to moving it there? While we're at it, I think we could add the name of his bestselling novel's title and the American Redoubt to the intro. WestRiding24 (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarize the key points of the article. If it's in the lead, but not the article, the article should expand accordingly (the comma in his name). If it's in the article but not the lead, then if it's notable, it should be summarized in the lead. See WP:LEAD and WP:LEADDD ButlerBlog (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those links. Very informative. WestRiding24 (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:James_Wesley_Rawles"