Talk:David Gewirtz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of CNN praise, written by Gewirtz[edit]

The first few sentences of Gewirtz's page included sentences, stating that: "According to CNN, he is 'a leading Presidential scholar'" and "one of America's foremost cyber-security experts and a top expert on saving and creating jobs". However, both of those quotes reference articles, hosted at CNN, which are authorized by Gewirtz. To say that CNN has described him as a leading Presidential scholar is false. Content he wrote has been published at CNN, and the paragraph of text he provided them, posted at the bottom of the article that describes the author, includes this flowery praise.

No CNN journalist had described Gewritz in these terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.71.20 (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of qualifications due to editorial disagreement[edit]

On 22 Oct 2011, an anonymous editor removed reference to the subject as a "computer scientist" and technologist, when the subject has been in these roles for decades. This removal was presumably vandalism in retaliation for an editorial published in ZDNet (see http://www.zdnet.com/blog/diy-it/why-ive-finally-had-it-with-my-linux-server-and-im-moving-back-to-windows/245) the previous day. While the editorial certainly served to inflame certain technology users, there is also evidence that highly qualified technology experts (see http://hal2020.com/about/) such as a former Microsoft General Manager, agree with him (see http://hal2020.com/2011/10/21/for-all-of-us-who-have-lives-there%E2%80%99s-windows-david-gewirtz/). Therefore it is inappropriate to remove mention of the man's occupation as an act of spite. --Stanfrnkln (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously taking a "former Microsoft General Manager"'s opinion on Linux as a valid argument in this discussion ? While I don't have any problem with Gewirtz' article and agree that vandalizing his bio is clueless (and tends to prove zealots are a nuisance to everybody, even Linux advocates), I have to say this made me laugh to tears. Kwyxz (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The perspective of a MS general manager when it comes to Linux is definitely a bit of a laugh, and I agree with you. That probably wasn't the best argument I could have made. But it goes to whether or not Gerwitz is a technology person. To have a negative view (even one article) about Linux does not immediately disqualify him as either a comptuer scientist or technologist, which is really what I was saying. The MS guy is also clearly a technologist, even if he's on the "other" side. But yeah, I do see your point. --Stanfrnkln (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted citation[edit]

I reverted the citation back, because as far as I know, there is no rule on Wikipedia that citations are only valid for documents directly and currently accessible on the Internet. If that were the case, then many foundational citations would be considered invalid simply because they occurred before the mid-1990s.

The original citation pointed to a radio broadcast that was also made available online at http://airamerica.com/ondemand/play/download/74811 and is no longer reachable. However, there are many other credible sources providing support for this reference, including CNN and Fox News, which is more than just "splashed on the web". I will find the details of the Fox News and CNN citations, and make them additional citations for this detail shortly. --Stanfrnkln (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanished citation[edit]

The following sentence is referenced with a Ring of Fire interview which has vanished from the internet due to insolvency of the hosting organization.

Gewirtz has been awarded the Sigma Xi Research Award in Engineering and was a candidate for the 2008 Pulitzer Prize in Letters.

Note that pulitizer.org contains not a single mention of "Gerwitz" either on their internal index or on Google's index. I was unable to verify for which work he was cited (presumably the email junket). "was a candidate for" is splashed on the web in a zillion places, but the primary reference proved elusive. MaxEnt (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulitzer's position on recognizing contest entrants[edit]

I'll leave it to someone else to decide if the citation should be removed, but here's what Pulitzer's FAQ page [1] says:

... Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. No information on entrants is provided.
...We discourage someone saying he or she was "nominated" for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us.

Dcooperdb9 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. The term "nominated" is specifically for a set of Pulitzer candidates that were essentially chosen and announced as runner-ups. According to the Pulitzer office, a submitted entrant that's been accepted for evaluation is considered a "candidate" and that is a term that Pulitzer seems to allow. --Stanfrnkln (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.pulitzer.org/faq#q20

Wikipedia's not a fan club[edit]

This article is disproportionate to the topic and inappropriate in it's current form for Wikipedia. The article is extensively attributed... to the topic of the article--hardly a trustworthy source. I suggest that it be reduced to a few sentences or removed. I vastly prefer the former, but it's not clear that the aggrandizing nature of this page can be effectively reigned in. A good example is the cheap suggestion that the subject was in the "considered" for a Pulitzer prize (which is meaningless if true and isn't even verifiable). I don't know if the main editors are actually the subject, but they're clearly big fans and Wikipedia is not a fan club. Amead (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have somethign against the subject. I see in the sourced references The History Channel, CNN, Voice of America, and even Harvard. Those are clearly trustworthy sources. This post (and the claim against notability) showed up after the subject wrote an article on Wikileaks and national security, and the haters are coming out of the woodwork. That kind of vanalism isn't appropriate for this venue. I also have removed the notability flag because the subject has received considerable editorial coverage, some of that coverage cited right in this article. Subject meets notability guidelines in a variety of different ways and it's particularly uncool to take your political disagreements and use that as justification to deface Wikipedia pages. --Stanfrnkln (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Gewirtz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Award?[edit]

Is any reference available for the Sigma Xi award this article claims? Here's the Sigma Xi awards page. I can't find any mention of Gerwitz, or the specific award this article claims he won. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on David Gewirtz. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevance of the Elvis impersonator who married him and his wife? Why is this included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:62A:4:2F00:6E0B:84FF:FEA5:6DEE (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source update for previous source that link-rotted off the Internet[edit]


  • Full disclosure: I am the subject of this page. There is a note on reference 7 (Ring of Fire) indicating that the page linked to is no longer available, which is verification that I earned the Sigma Xi award.:
  • I was awarded that way back in 1982, way before there was an Internet. There isn't likely to be much about it online.:
  • I can take a photo of the actual award certificate and provide it to a location you specify. This is probably an ongoing challenge with Wikipedia as it tries to provide source materials for documents that existed before and are not published on the Internet. Please advise, and I'd be glad to help provide that image. Another possible source is this bio from Harvard's Nieman Foundation: http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=233:
  • Thanks! -- David:

Davidgewirtz (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Partly done: There is no need to remove a source just because the link is dead (WP:LINKROT). So instead of removing the link, I have added the source you provided in addition to the existing sourcing.
We cannot generally use primary sources, especially not for extraordinary claims such as awards.
That being said, if you're willing to license the image under CC-BY-SA, I'm sure our sister-project, Wikimedia Commons would appreciate the image. Melmann 10:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please add degree to education[edit]


  • I am the subject of this piece. Thanks for looking at this! In the Education section, it states He dropped out of the Ph.D. program at the University of California, Berkeley and was awarded a non-academic jure dignitatis Ph.D. by the University of Kent for accomplishments in his field:
  • I have a Masters Degree in Education specializing in Learning and Technology from Western Governors University.:
  • [1]:

Davidgewirtz (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Commencement (PDF). Western Governors University. August 15, 2015. p. 9. Retrieved 30 June 2021.
Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Melmann 10:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Gewirtz&oldid=1202275083"