Talk:Mia Bloom

message: Can somebody justify why there is a Wikipedia page devoted to an assistant professor of political science who has yet to land a tenured faculty position?  There are HUNDREDS of assistant professors in political science who have published articles and univeristy press books in their respective fields.  There should be some compelling reason why Dr. Bloom's career and work merits special attention on Wikipedia.  Otherwise, mark for deletion--seems suspiciously like self-advertising.  Every assistant professor in political science, or in any academic field, cannot have their own Wikipedia page.  That's what www.MYNAME.com domain registration is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.14.179 (talk • contribs) 
: I wrote the original article. If by "self-advertising" you mean that I am Mia Bloom: no I'm not. I agree with the assertion that an assistant professor is not notable. Mia Bloom wrote a book that perhaps deserves its own article and that made her notable too. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on the book is not written yet. Feel free to improve this or any other article. If you want to see any article removed, try WP:AFD. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You want this deleted to help your case in deleting that bit, or you actually think there's a problem with this article? Be honest. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

text: I've put a 'cit needed' tag on that para, unless there is urgency, that's how to deal with uncited material. WP:AfD is where deletion is discussed. Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: we're addressing a debate from a decade ago. Discussion of deletion is not done on a talk page. There's a process - an article is nominated and the subject is judged against notability criteria in their field, or failing that, WP:GNG. I don't doubt that this subject would pass GNG and thus likely warrants an article on wiki (which is why I didn't nominated it for AfD in 10/2015), I do think it suffers from COI issues and most definitely was not of neutral/objective tone at that time either. Any claim that is unreferenced has been slapped with a CN tag and internet references have been checked - those that fail to confirm any claims have been tagged so. As for the issue related to her comments included in the Nice attacks, I am advising those on the talk page of issues connected to the subject. Rayman60 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Justify

message: Just putting this here as a record. The recent bombing of this article with more than a dozen inline tags for citation needed and failed verification is flatly disruptive and very nearly vandalism. Sources were easily found for nearly all of the information, and "verification failed" sources were easily found as an archive version. Verification did not "fail" if there was no attempt made to verify. TimothyJosephWood 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline improvement tags 

message: I'm no expert on encyclopedic sources, but I think that using LinkedIn as a source is probably not a wise thing? If it cannot be otherwise verified, perhaps it is best to leave it out. LinkedIn is in the end a social media website, and it would be the same as using what someone lists on Facebook as their job. Is there anyone that disagrees with that sentiment?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:SELFSOURCE, this is allowed for fairly mundane personal details. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  LinkedIn as a source? Uh 

message: The quote from the article is "Hoffman, a renowned terrorism expert who teaches at Georgetown University, knows Bloom as a colleague, and he has followed her work closely. “She is clearly one of the up and coming junior scholars in terrorism,” he says." 
The article does not state Bloom as the expert, but rather Hoffman. Easy mistake to make, but it IS a mistake. Cheers.75.151.5.228 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be on the wrong article...and on a topic that is no longer being discussed even there. TimothyJosephWood 19:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Strike self. I missed the recent edits. TimothyJosephWood 19:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mia Bloom. 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:
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iWjg98MOTHYJ:shared.cas.gsu.edu/profile/mia-bloom/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20160720040603/http://shared.cas.gsu.edu/profile/mia-bloom/ on http://shared.cas.gsu.edu/profile/mia-bloom/
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aB4eUetzpAUJ:www.huffingtonpost.com/mia-bloom/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20160229180909/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mia-bloom/ on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mia-bloom/
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://researchmagazine.uga.edu/aa/winter2008/maven.php with https://web.archive.org/web/20160315000750/http://researchmagazine.uga.edu/aa/winter2008/maven.php on http://researchmagazine.uga.edu/aa/winter2008/maven.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified