Talk:John Bear (educator)

message: This is the proper place to discuss the John Bear article. Bill Huffman 12:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jeehong, It's unclear to me what the purpose of your post is? Are you proposing that this information be made part of the article? Exactly what do you propose adding? My understanding is that John legally changed his name to John Bear when he got married which was after he got his doctorate. Regards, Bill Huffman 02:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeehong, the topic is included in the article. gidonb (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking the Ice 

message: It is important to explain the wp:notability for the subject of a Wikipedia article. The following was removed form the article with the edit comment, "The opinion of a single journalist does not constitute fact". I reverted the removal the following statement because ithelps to explain why this subject is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia.
*He is widely acknowledged to be a world authority on distance learning and perhaps the leading authority in the country on diploma mills.<-ref1->The college of Web knowledge, by David Shamah, The Jerusalem Post, Feb 22, 2006</ref><-ref2->Best-Selling 'Maker's Diet' Creator Has Shifty Qualifications, WPBF, May 27, 2004</ref><-ref3->'Fake doctor factory' awards degrees, BBC News, 26 November, 2000</ref>
First please note that three different sources have been provided for this statement, not one as the edit comment seems to erroneously state. There are dozens of such statements in reliable souces. I purposely picked three from the many choices from three different places around the world. If someone feels that three in the article are insufficient to support this important assertion then please explain why and express how many you think are required. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: John Bear is mentioned as a recognized authority in all three references that I provided. Your argument about him being referenced as an authority in 50 sources is basically not relevant. Wikipedia reports on what is verifiable not what is true. Please see wp:verifiable. Your own personal issue with the subject is not relevant to Wikipedia. I respectfully suggest that you find some other Wikipedia articles that don't trigger such strong emotions in yourself. TallMagic (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I provided three solid references that support him being an authority. If you would like more then they may be chosen from this list. . The opinion of someone when documented in a wp:verifiable source is something that can be used in Wikipedia. Whether or not someone is an authority is an opinion that should be in the article. Please review the wp:verifiable policy. TallMagic (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject [[wp:notability|notability]] 

message: User Degreeoftruth has asked me on my Talk page to remove the "commercial" link to Google Books.
My intention was in no way to advertise Bear's book.  In fact, until this afternoon, I had never even heard of Bear.  I found the article interesting and after taking note of the ongoing edit war, I decided that for myself and other wiki users, it would be useful to read portions of what Bear actually writes about.   As I interpret Wiki policy, it is appropriate to link externally to Google Books. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is appropriate if it is an ISBN link, which it is not.Degreeoftruth (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If true, that's news to me, but then again I am not a newly registered user with a personal agenda to pursue. --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Books link 

message: The article claim, "He has been engaged by the FBI in its investigations of diploma mills for some twenty years.[6]"
:I took a look at footnote 6.  Clicking on it went to a site which has only a few words on about diploma mills.  It says nothing about the FBI.  Should not this statement should have good secondary source or be deleted?  (EnochBethany (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid citation for FBI claim