Talk:Carlos Watson (journalist)

message: This entry appears to be made up almost exclusively of  publicity material copied verbatim from the subject's own personal website and contains mostly unsourced and/or unsupported POV statements. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, except according to archive.org the page you're referring to was first created mid 2007 and this article, at that point, was already substantially written. Looks more like that web site was based on this one, and should attribute us. I don't disagree there are a few statements here that could be more neutral in tone, but let's just fix those. Most of the points to me read simply as factual, ie. he went here, did that, etc. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article's history, the original creator is listed as Topical650, a user who has never contributed to any other article or entry on Wikipedia either before or since. The domain, "conversationswithcarlos.com", hosting the page on which the virtually identical biographical material appears is also registered to the subject's own production company, Run Rabbit Run Productions LLC, and the same material also appears verbatim in his publicity "bio" prepared by the Keppler Speaker Bureau which represents the subject as an agent. It seems quite likely, therefore, that "Topical650" created the Wikipedia page (possibly also as an agent of the entry's subject) for publicity as opposed to encyclopedic purposes. While the information may be more or less accurate, its form does not appear to be "objective" within the parameters of Wikipedia and contains unsupported and/or unsourced POV statements. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Re: the Keppler Bureau document, it says it was created December 2007 but doesn't claim copyright. Could also be based on this page? Though it seems more similar to a version from before October 2007. Still unclear to me if there is a WP:COPYVIO here, but I hear your concern. The consistency implies that someone may have started the article with professional copy. I'd suggest we move forward and rewrite sections as we find good citations. I searched for sources, added below here, and i think he clearly meets the notability requirements for an article because there are sufficient secondary sources about him. Then for me it's just a question of what is noteworthy about him and what of his history is neutral and true. I also added some fact tags yesterday for things that seem questionable but not too controversial (to my eye, granted). But most of the did this, graduated here, kind of copy is neutral tone to me. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concern was that this article was not sourced and appeared to be based mostly on promotional materials. Those issues are seeming to be appropriately addressed. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. And thank you for tagging the article, got me inspired to do some work and find some sources. Nothing like a challenge to get one going. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: You're welcome. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV: Article appears to largely mirror the subject's own personal site

message: Ok, so this article has migrated from (television host) to (television) to (journalist). Do we still feel like that's an appropriate sub title? I was thinking possibly (businessman) now that he's investing and promoting new ventures. Part of the need for a parenthetical suffix is that there is another notable Carlos Watson, and I'm going to setup a disambiguation page to put them at parity next. Perhaps over time this Carlos will supplant the other to such a degree in notability we'll remove the suffix entirely. Opinions? - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, from rereading Wikipedia:DISAMBIG I'm thinking now that this article should be primary and the other Carlos Watson moved with a disambig link to him. From traffic statistics, this article is three times as popular. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article naming 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carlos Watson (journalist). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906160554/http://thehill.com/old-capital-living/from-kindergarten-delinquent-to-star-2005-01-19.html to http://thehill.com/old-capital-living/from-kindergarten-delinquent-to-star-2005-01-19.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609194159/http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/stanford_lawyer/issues/74/sl74_FromSiliconValleyCNN.pdf to http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/stanford_lawyer/issues/74/sl74_FromSiliconValleyCNN.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724172037/http://fromsonconsulting.com/achieva.html to http://fromsonconsulting.com/achieva.html
*Added  tag to http://www.nbcumv.com/msnbc/release_detail.nbc/msnbc-20090331000000-carloswatsonjoins.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514151009/http://www.businessweek.com:80/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2009/db2009058_738267.htm? to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2009/db2009058_738267.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090606165350/http://www.mediabistro.com:80/fishbowlny/new_media/the_stimulist_puts_another_nail_in_snarks_coffin_116317.asp to http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/new_media/the_stimulist_puts_another_nail_in_snarks_coffin_116317.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714064003/https://alumni.mckinsey.com/alumni/default/public/content/jsp/alumni_news/20080225_CarlosWatsonLBN.jsp to https://alumni.mckinsey.com/alumni/default/public/content/jsp/alumni_news/20080225_CarlosWatsonLBN.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The only discussion I see on this talk page about whether this article is NPOV is from 2009 (see first section above). But the tag seems to have been added to the article itself in September 2021. The article did and still does includes a fair number of his professional accomplishments. Those happened, and so did the recent very epic fall from grace which seems to me to be adequately chronicled in the article as it stands. I feel like the article is pretty balanced at this point and the tag could be removed. What specific reasons does anyone have for wanting that tag to be there? Novellasyes (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like the article is obviously problematic so if the tagger didn't leave a message here I think it can be removed. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the (September 2021) NPOV tag on the article still apt?