Talk:William C. Bradford

message: This page is currently protected. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General note 

message: We have a problem with the military record section.  The only source cited for the purported claim to have been a major is a copy of an Indy Star article which is hosted in violation of copyright on a website which is itself highly partisan. That is not a showstopper as it could be sourced direct from the Indy Star, albeit perhaps with no link for the content, but there is only one source for this claim and that itself does not seem to be an especially good source since the piece was later seen to be in error on a couple of issues.  We are assured by the subject above that he did not make these claims, so in the absence of a better source for them I do not think we should include that section at all; take out the hint of scandal and it is pretty trivial stuff. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't searched for other sources for that claim, so I don't know if there are others. Last night I was primarily concerned with referencing the entire article, and not just that paragraph. You are correct in that the article looks pretty good the way it is now (with the military section removed). The references used in it can probably be moved to other parts of the article, as well. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, changes are not a problem.  Hopefully we can get William Bradford to chip in and co-operate here - he can also contact people through back-channels, either by emailing me (special:emailuser/JzG) or other admins, or through WP:OTRS, our online ticketing system.  We can't, of course, promise that he will love the end result, but hopefully he will at least be able to acknowledge it as fair.  Please be assured that we have commitment from the very highest level to be humane as well as accurate. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, I have a question about these edits and WP:BLP. I've always used  as a placeholder where I intend to put a reference, or where a reference is needed. Is that wrong? I am aware that BLP states that you shouldn't have unsourced information about living people, but it wasn't referenced before, and I had to sleep at some point, you know? So, I suppose my question is to what extent is the  tag acceptable in articles tagged as BLP? It's not like those facts were the controversial ones, either. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * If something is uncontroversial, or if you're pretty sure it's true from web searches but you're trying to track down the best source, it's perfectly legitimate.  But if the fact is negative in tone it's best to omit rather than add fact, and you should probably self-revert after a wek or so if you can't find a reputable source for anything, good or bad. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military record 

message: I'm concerned that the paragraph in question my violate Wikipedia BLP rules. Since I was the one who inserted it in the first place, I felt it would be best to err on the side of caution. I admit that I should have reviewed it more carefully before posting it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent deletion to controversy section

message: I've created a new section on Bradford's alleged misconduct regarding his claims of military service and postings on the Indy Law blog. I realize this is a sensitive topic so I welcome any ccmments and concerns. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section on Bradford's Alleged Misconduct

message: The career section needs to note that Bradford resigned from Indiana University-Indianapolis after it was revealed that he had lied about his military record, including falsely claiming to have won a Silver Star during Desert Storm. His lies were widely reported in 2005, including by the highly reputable website Inside Higher Ed. See here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/06/bradford. It makes no sense to report Bradford's awards at Indiana without mentioning his resignation. Indeed, having attempted to edit the page myself on two occasions, I believe that Bradford himself has been changing the page back. He has admitted in the past to using sock puppets.
203.147.102.138 (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Cannolis (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015 

message: Some basic searching shows that some of the publications that Bradford claimed he published (see here for a list: ) do not exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigao (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-existent publications by Bradford 

message: As of today, 1 September 2015, this article is clearly not at the B-level, nor even C-level, as it lacks images, is incomplete, and has several significant gaps in the biography.  As such, I've downgraded it to the Start class.  With more development, it could easily rise to a higher-level article.  If anyone disagrees with this re-assessment, please provide your rationale.  Also, perhaps, anyone involved with the Chicago or University of Florida projects should reassess this article from their WikiProject perspective.  Hermera34 (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-assessment on 1 September 2015