Talk:Art Rascon

Improper reverts

Ca2james you are wrongfully reverting edits that are properly cited. Perhaps you are confusing notability guidelines with RS. Primary sources and self-published sources on themselves are acceptable. Please become versed regarding the differences. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Mmmmm, no, I'm not improperly reverting anything. In the one case, the source didn't say it was a national award; that was put in incorrectly. In the other cases, only primary sources support the word national; there's no independent confirmation that he won any national awards, even from the giver of said awards (I've been looking, and looking hard). Since there's doubt, it's better to keep that kind of thing out. Surely that's obvious? Ca2james (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears you may be confused over sources. I'vetaken this issue to WP:BLPN. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I replied there also. I don't think I'm confused; I think what I'm doing is saying, "huh. His bio contains inaccuracies, which are repeated each time his bio is used. That makes those facts controversial and so the article need sourcing that actually confirms what he says instead of repeating the inaccuracies. Because this is a blp, it's best not to take chances; it's prudent to remove the (possibly inaccurate) national/regional/local modifiers until sources that don't use his bio can be found to verify those modifiers. The article then reflects the sources except for the inaccuracies, and is neither worse nor better for this change." Ca2james (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, as I've explained on blpn, I see why my edit summaries were unjustified. However, two of the reverts were removing OR, so those should stay removed, unless you want me to add them and revert them with an OR edit summary - let me know if that's what you want. The third one, if you want to restore it, sure, go ahead. And if you really feel admin action is needed here (per your message at the AfD), go ahead and do that, too, but I don't think it necessary. Ca2james (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ca2james, it was not WP:OR and by making such an allegation, you are accusing me of violating policy, a rather chilling allegation. Please familiarize yourself with the PAGs that you're using to support your arguments, especially before you revert good faith edits as you've done to Rascon. If you are questioning a cited source, you can (1) try to find a better source, (2) tag it with an inline citation, (3) open a discussion at WP:RSN for input and if all else fails, you can (4) call an RfC. Also read WP:STATUSQUO and keep in mind that when you revert material that is cited to a RS, the onus is on you to provide a valid reason for reverting which will involve some TP discussion as I've already initiated here. If that doesn't work, you can always initiate an RfC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, I have no idea who added those modifiers, but I'm pretty sure you didn't add both of them. I'm saying that specifying "national" for the Emmy and Murrow awards isn't supported by *any* of the references, so they're not supported by RS, and including them in the article is OR. I'm quite certain that whoever added these modifiers did so in good faith .... but it's still OR and should be removed. I have looked extensively for a better source and have found nothing; in fact, everything I've found indicates that these awards are regional, not national. There's no need to open a discussion at RSN because it's not an issue of reliability; it's an issue of the modifiers not being in any RS. Similarly, this is pretty clearly OR so opening a discussion after removal isn't required; besides, we're discussing it now, right?

If you can find RS that say that the Emmy and Murrow awards were national awards, please put the modifiers back and add those sources. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you found a source for a national Emmy nomination - that's great! Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio and possible close paraphrasing

As I noted at the AfD, much of the earlier content of the article added added November 18, 2011 appears to be a copyvio of his bio for the 2011 San Antonio YSA conference. Although I can't find a date for the 2011 conference, since this year's event looks to be held in early November, it's reasonable to think that the 2011 event was also held in early November, or before November 18, 2011. Earwig gives 79.8% confidence ("probable") of copyright violation for that November 18, 2011 version of the article and the YSA bio, and gives a 46.8% confidence ("possible") of violation for the current version of the article and the YSA bio.

Although Earwig gives a 35.3% confidence ("unlikely") that the whole current article is a copyvio, since the structure of the Career section closely mirrors the YSA article and the sentence order of the Honors section closely mirrors the CBS bio, there's a possibility of some close paraphrasing occurring in these sections. I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately close paraphrasing anything; I assume that any such paraphrasing was done inadvertently and in good faith.

To remove all remaining traces of copyvio and close paraphrasing, I'm going to do some rewriting and tweaking. Ca2james (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, done the rewrite of the Career section. Earwig now gives a 35.1% ("unlikely") copright violation compared to the YSA bio and gives a 30.1% ("unlikely") copyright violation overall. I tried to keep everything in; any removal of information was unintentional. While doing the rewrite, I noticed that the refs didn't all support the text to which they were attached (the CBS bio, for example, doesn't cover anything after 1998) so I've tried to fix those up, too, and I've added a couple of citation needed tags for sentences that I couldn't find support for. I'll tackle the Honors section a bit later. Ca2james (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And now I've finished rephrasing the Honors section. Earwig gives 25.4% confidence ("unlikely") of copyright violation for the whole article now so I think any possible paraphrasing has been removed. Again, I tried to keep all the information in the section and any removal was unintentional. Ca2james (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That was good work. I'm sure if you did toss something crucial, someone else will figure out a way to get it back in without making the Earwig tool upset. Montanabw^(talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Thank you also for pointing me to the Earwig tool; I appreciate the help. Ca2james (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Unverified claims about Jacob Rascon's role

Lorelai1335 keeps insisting that the sourced material here, describing Art Rascon's coanchored last newscast with his son does not verify he is taking his father's place, and that Jacob Rascon anchors the morning news. But instead of citing a source to verify that, the editor keeps asserting her opinion is correct, without citing a source as requested to verify her assertions are correct. She also implies that the cited source does not say Jacob is taking Art's place, but it doesn't say that he hasn't. She has repeatedly been asked to cite a source for verification, and just keeps reverting the edits with a source, while not providing a source to verify what she's claiming. "Watch it and see" is not sufficient verification. So unless this editor cites a source, or can get consensus approval to validate her assertions, she should not just keep reverting content with cited sources. A few revers ago, she did attempt to cite a blog post, but a cursory search of that source does not convince me it is reliable. Since she has refused to provide a source, and hasn't opened a discussion to get her assertions approved for inclusion, I am opening this subject on the matter. Lorelai1335, you are being given a chance here to verify the merits of your assertions. I strongly encourage you to take adcantage of this opportunity. And anyone else reading this, if you have sources that verify her claims, feel free to update this article. But in the absence of such sources, the assertion should not be restored without consensus approval, because that's the way Wikipedia works. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide any source material saying Jacob is taking his father’s told in the 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. newscasts? Or is this only based on your assumption that their coanchoring a single newscast together at 11 a.m. (not noon, as you repeatedly, incorrectly claim) on Monday, January 3, 2022 somehow implied this change? Melanie Lawson has anchored this newscast alone each day since and Jacob has appeared on the morning show, saying that is his new role. You’re incorrect avssumptions, no matter how earnestly you believe them, do not mean the references you to use back them up. You are free to provide new references that may enforce the alternate reality you seems bewilderingly desperate to believe. Lorelai1335 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The onus isn't on me to prove that what you said is incorrect. The currently-cited source noted that Att and his son coanchored a newscast together, but said nothing about that not being Jacob's new assignment. Wikipedia is not concerned with what a source does not say, only with what reliavly-cited sources do say. You are the one claiming that the source does not say something, so it is up to you to prove why that source was inaccurate. And I'm basing that on 15 years of experience with how Wikipedia works. If you can produce even one source or get other editors on board to agree with your assertions, or who can in turn provide sources to cerify your assertions regaeding Jacob Rascon, then this information can be reinserted. By continuing to revert to your preferred version of the page, which is not supported by sources currently cited, you are engaging in disruptive editing and edit warring.

If you wanted to make the arguemnt that the source doesn't explicitly say the arreangement is permanent, then that's a separate issue. But that's not what you've been saying. So I stand by my interpretation based on what the currently-cited sorces seem to indicate. Anything different would have to be cerified by reliabble sources that clearly indicate what you are claiming. In the meantime, as I stated in my last revert of your edit, since your recerts clearly violate two Wikipedia policies, unless you can tell me which Wikipedia policies the current wording violates, in the absence of sources to the contrary, we go by what the sources say. If you insisit on continuing to engage in disruptive editing and an editing war, your conduct could potentially be referred to the admins for possible disciplinary action. With that in mind, measure your next moves very carefully. please. I am doing my best to assume good faith on your part, but your refusal to accept that the onus is entirely on you in this case is straining my belief in yout credibility as an editor. I'd rather not ask for administrative intervention on this, but I will do what I have to if these patterns of misconduct continue. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with Jgstokes and have changed the wording in the article to follow the source. ––FormalDude talk 22:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Covered Pope John Paul II's assassination attempt?

I just removed mention of Mr. Rascon having covered the Pope John Paul II assassination attempt. I knew him at Ricks Junior College (now Brigham Young University-Idaho) in the fall of 1980 when we were Communications students and announcers on the campus radio station(s). I am not sure when he changed to Brigham Young University (BYU) in Provo UT, but the article says he didn't start his television career until 1983 - and graduated in 1985. The assassination attempt occurred in May 1981 while Mr. Rascon was still 18 years old. He would not have served a full-time mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints until he turned 19 years old, as of December 1981. At that time, full-time missions for males were 18 months before reverting back to 24 months (effective January 1, 1985). It is most likely he didn't start at BYU until the fall semester of 1983 - hence maybe when he began in television at the school station, KBYU-TV.Dirty Dan the Man (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)