Talk:William Durbin

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 21, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  The article needs to be gone over for each aspect of the Manual of Style. There are spelling, grammar and other basic errors. There is also inconsistency in the referencing system. Visually, the large blocks of text without proper titles or sub-sectioning is very unappealing to read. These need to be trimmed down and broken up in to digestible chunks.
:2. Factually accurate?:  There are a vast amount of potentially controversial statements that either lack citations entirely, or lack reliable ones. Statements such as "taught over a thousand peace officers" need independent verification.
:3. Broad in coverage?:  The article is overly detailed in some areas (belt rankings and philosophy for example) and lacking in others, such as the history of the mechanics of how the art spread beyond a single school or teacher. Remember to state the obvious and not overindulge when it comes to the level of detail in the prose. Cover a broad range of topics, and stick to the important facts. Brevity is not just the soul of wit, but of readability.
:4. Neutral point of view?:  The article contains no counterpoint to the many outlandish claims now present, and has seemingly (to read the prose) been written by an admirer of the founder and the practice. Any nascent U.S. synthesis martial art, disconnected from traditional roots and lineage, has detractors. To be perfectly honest, with the glowing account of the founder and the excessive philosophical detail, this reads like a brochure.
:5. Article stability?  The article has not been the subject of any recent or ongoing edit wars.
:6. Images?:  There are properly attributed and well-used images.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— VanTucky (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: Quoting from Wikipedia policy, 
*[quote]Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracyWikipedia:Reliable_sources[/quote]
*[quote]Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptableWikipedia:Verifiability[/[/quote]
*[quote]Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:..it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties.Wikipedia:Verifiability[/[/quote]
Given that, many claims in this article - such as most of those in the Recognition and Endorsements section, violate the above policies.  Durbin's claims about who has endorsed him are not third-party sources.  Also, they are self-published by Durbin, are self-serving, and make claims about third parties (the people he claims has endorsed him).
Therefore, these sources will be removed from the article.  That may lead many statements to be unsourced.  It is customary courtesy to wait awhile (one week) before removing such unsourced comments once they are identified.  I'll wait appropriately.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem, they are acceptable under the very terms of those policies you quoted, as the terms of those policies with regards to self-published works in topics about them.  The claims are cited, and that included books which have been through outside editorial review by non-vanity presses, which are acceptable by Wikipedia standards.  --Wingsandsword (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you derive from those policies that the references are acceptable?  I can't see how you derive the exact opposite of what the policies state.  I think we could open this up for discussioin in the martial arts group on Wikipedia, but before we do that, I'd like to see a better explanation from you.  The claims are cited, but the references aren't acceptable by policiy.  The policies don't differentiate between vanity and non-vanity press, so I don't know why you think that's relevant.  (though, I must say, I can't find any source which states whether or not Human Kinetics is a vanity press, so that's a red herring anyway) -198.97.67.57 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone writing about their own art it a primary source, so use for contentious claims like endorsements is not good. I know nothing about the quality of the books, Paladin Press covers speciality topics especially martial arts, & related areas but I don't think it's a vanity press but I also don't think it has a wide peer review policy, see the article. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with sources

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on William Durbin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071001044323/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/plaindealer/offers.html?url=%2Fplaindealer%2Faccess%2F100247292.html%3Fdids=100247292:100247292&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=May+5%2C+1992&author=FRAN+HENRY&pub=The+Plain+Dealer&edition=&startpage=NOPGCIT&desc=In+self-defense+hit+your+attacker+where+it+counts+Callers+to+our+everywoman+hot+line+have+asked+for+information+about+how+to+protect+themselves.+We%27re+happy+to+oblige. to http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/plaindealer/offers.html?url=%2Fplaindealer%2Faccess%2F100247292.html%3Fdids%3D100247292%3A100247292%26FMT%3DFT%26FMTS%3DABS%3AFT%26date%3DMay%2B5%252C%2B1992%26author%3DFRAN%2BHENRY%26pub%3DThe%2BPlain%2BDealer%26edition%3D%26startpage%3DNOPGCIT%26desc%3DIn%2Bself-defense%2Bhit%2Byour%2Battacker%2Bwhere%2Bit%2Bcounts%2BCallers%2Bto%2Bour%2Beverywoman%2Bhot%2Bline%2Bhave%2Basked%2Bfor%2Binformation%2Babout%2Bhow%2Bto%2Bprotect%2Bthemselves.%2BWe%2527re%2Bhappy%2Bto%2Boblige.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified