Talk:Ogi Ogas

message: Removed multiple anonymous blogs and included references from more reputable sources and peer-reviewed journals. If a rant-filled anonymous blog-post () can be included, as is the case currently, then we might as well start including anonymous comments on blogs and profanity-laced tweets as sources. QuietMorn (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this important editing work. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous blogs as sources

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ogi Ogas. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for //grandslamshow.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=81&sid=12f6c95e1a40adce39a0a7372aeded48
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Came here for information, but was appalled to find:
* advertising language in the book descriptions, apparently attributable to User:Katzan123, and
* some of this plagiarised (copy and pasted from the web pages of the book publishers web pages, without quotation marks, or—in one case—acknowledgment of the source).
At the same time, the structure of the article was not in any way standard to a WP biography; some of this I have remedied, but other, better sets of eyes are needed, and so an Expert tag was placed, calling for Biography attention.
After these visible warnings of malpractice, I began reading more closely, and became aware that significant biographical material was either from the subject's self-populated web pages at his Harvard place of work, or from press releases to organizations to which he belonged (i.e., non-third party, and so self-published or otherwise not independent). 
On closer examination—limited, because of time, I began to check citations for the content they purported to provide, and gave up when the entirety of the lede proved untrustworthy, encyclopedically. For instance, the DOB that was sourced to the Oak Ridge press release does not appear in it (search born, 1971, etc. to no avail), and the remainder of the lede is either unsourced, or sourced to self-published pages.
I removed the vague DOB appearances, began to structure sections more per usual, removed egregious WP:VERIFY violations (Amazon sales page as a source), began moving in text book details into refs, etc.
I then repaired bare URLs (using reFill), and noted those irreparable (marking them as dead links).
Finally, I:
* identified and rectified plagiarised advertising text from Hatchett, and 
* moved that and other clear advertising quotes to block quotes to make clear these need to be removed by future editors.
In one further case, over-confident language claiming that something was "demonstrated" was toned down to say "attempted to demonstrate." (Read Popper's Conjectures and Refutations; such overconfident text about scientific subjects is either deeply flawed philosophy of science, or is simply more of the promotional language.)
The piece is otherwise not encyclopedic, giving ISBN's in the text (rather than via reference), mis- or inconsistently using standard formats (titles sometimes italicized, sometimes not), and mucking up punctuation. While I have corrected such wherever I came upon it, the article needs a top-to-bottom copyedit to begin to move it toward encyclopedic.
Tags were thus placed in most clearly offending sections, and at article top to list this article as in need of attention. Inline tags are placed to make clear to future editors specific places where I have already found problems. An absence of inline tags in a section does not mean the text is fine; it simply means no one has looked at it closely, yet.
Cheers. Le Prof.  Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of this date 

message: I would note in closing, a general issue with this article's presentation of a Harvard University visiting scholar. The normal units of scholarly publication in academia are the research article or the research monograph—not books in the popular press. Hence, respected academics write series of papers, or monographs, and then, at some point in career, follow these with popular accounts about the implications of their research. The way this article is written—see the section on A Billion Wicked Thoughts, and its closing sentence—this academic is presented as creating popular press material, and following it by conference speaking tours. This is not academic scholarship, and so this article is either mis-telling the story (ignoring the scholarly basis for the popular works), or, there is a significant, deeper story about this individual that is not being told here. Cheers. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: General issue with presentation

message: The following sentence, which suggests an earlier possible title for one of this writer's books, is moved here to Talk because:
* the first of the two citations is a dead link, and 
* the second is a self-published blog.
Here is the sentence:
That is, there is no reliable source given for this sentence, so it was redacted, and moved here until it can be sourced in compliance with WP:VERIFY. Cheers. Le Prof  50.179.252.14 (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliably sourced sentence moved here to Talk

message: The section that appeared earlier, before and after my edits, seemed to imply that Ogas was a formal contributor to this book. He is not listed as a co-author, or in any other way that justifies this section appearing here:
What the book says, and its accolades, are immaterial here until a formal connection is made with the title subject, Ogi Ogas. Please only return the book to the article, when the role played by Dr Ogas is made clear, based on a reliable, independent (third-party) source. If Ogas is simply acknowledged, or acted a research assistant, it does not belong as a separate section in his writings/career, rather as a single sentence.  Le Prof  50.179.252.14 (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I would mention it in the last sentence of one of his books. It's still important, just more minor. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfounded, misleading section on role in a particular book moved to Talk