Talk:John A. Bensel

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

New York (state) Mid‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Restoration of deletions

If you think Political Graveyard is an unreliable source develop consensus and have it added to the blacklisted unreliable source list. If you think the age of someone at death is unencyclopedic develop consensus at the Manual of Style and I will help you strip the tens of thousands of occurrences in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it's unreliable, I know. Besides, it fulfills the criteria for unreliable sites: it's self-published, without peer review, and without stating sources. Also, I do not lobby, and I do not blacklist. The PG is irrelevant here, since all info contained there is supported here by other sources. See Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources. Kraxler (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it is reliable since all the facts are correct but it is unreliable because it is a website? Peer review is for scientific journals. The New York Times is not peer reviewed, they don't send a copy to the Wall Street Journal before they publish. If you think it is unreliable, develop consensus instead of ad hoc deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. The death age is shown in the info-box. Why must everything be repeated three or four times everywhere, Mr. Norton? To get more edits? To pose as "The Great Lexicographer"? 32 edits to write a single-sentence non-article with the one piece of info (life-span) repeated five times? Why can't you learn to use the "Show preview" button. It is there to be used, Mr. Norton. Kraxler (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid reason for deletion of the age at death so I am restoring it. If you can cite a Wikipedia rule from the manual of style that supports your view, I will gladly remove it myself. Please note that everything in the infobox is repeated in the text of the article. That is the nature of an infobox. You may also note that some facts are repeated in the text and in the lede and are duplicated by succession boxes and by categories. Some articles also repeat the information in a timeline. It would be more persuasive if you quoted the manual of style. If you are correct and redundant information must be removed, we can delete the categories, and delete the infobox and delete the succession boxes together. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are sidestepping the issue again. Now a direct question: Why are you unable or unwilling to use the "Show preview" button? Kraxler (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]