Talk:Nick Begich (author)

Filled with nonsense

This article is nonsense filled. Off-web, dubious sources. Don't take what you read here as fact. Like much of the CT stuff on WP it has been tainted by those with an agenda. 99.114.247.196 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

As detailed above, this article is biased and full of inaccuracies and unsourced claims. For example:

• Calling HAARP "the "Star Wars" weapon".
• Saying that a conference was held because of the "international and global dangers of the weaponry" [HAARP].
• Making various unsourced claims about "military uses" of HAARP.
• The comment, "If one government experiments with the world’s weather patterns, what is done in one place will impact everyone else on the planet."

Secondly, including the following comment: "In 2002, the Russian State Duma expressed concern about HAARP being used to develop a qualitatively new type of weapon." It has nothing to do with Begich and the source provided doesn't even mention his name.

Thirdly, the sources (when actually provided) either link to a non-reliable source eg: a conspiracy theory website or are completely unverifiable eg: "The European Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament (February 5, 1998), Hearing on HAARP, Brussels, Belgium: European Parliament" which is the reference provided for the claim that HAARP is a "star wars weapon".

I have removed these inaccurate and unsourced claims but Dataediting has reverted them, simply claiming "documented sources". Tiller54 (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to do my part, but this article has become a bit too hagiographic for my tastes. For example, we're talking about a 54 year old man here, but according to the article, his career began in 1994 or thereabouts? Right...I've been on a career avoidance track my whole life, but even so, I've been working for a living since I was 16.

Of particular interest to me: someone deleted the citation to his full name and date of birth, but left his full name in the article. You can peruse the revision history for the citation, even though I'm sure the URL is dead, since that site has since been revamped. Anyway, it refers to Nicholas John Begich. Who's Who in Alaskan Politics refers to his father as "Nicholas John", even though the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress refers to his father as "Nicholas Joseph", which many people apparently have chosen to treat as gospel without consulting other sources.

Page 61 of this document contains various details of Begich's life which were deleted from the article. If I can find this information on another website with little difficulty, then what do I need Wikipedia for? I've been asking this question in various forms for years and no one wants to give me a satisfactory answer. Maybe those who are familiar with the Begich family might realize that a career as a "warehouse coordinator" for the Anchorage School District doesn't exactly measure up to his father's accomplishments in education. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Merged

I've merged this into the conspiracy theory section of the HAARP article since there's really nothing to say beyond that. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I contend this is inappropriate for an article which has survived an AFD. I would have undone it already, but there is only so much I can do from a smartphone. I further contend that just enough reliably sourced information exists to turn this into a proper biographical article, which has been my position in this from day one. However, since we are talking about someone of strictly marginal notability, the fact is that not that many people really care, leaving it fair game to those seeking to turn it into a POV fork. Oh yeah, there's one more thing. If you truly merged the article, then how is it that I'm leaving this comment on this talk page and not the HAARP talk page? RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 05:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, because redirects have talk pages too? Mangoe (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That comment right there, as well as other recent actions on this article, suggests that you have an opinion that this article shouldn't exist in the first place. Fine, but the fact that there was an AFD which was closed as keep tells me that the community may believe differently. I'm choosing not to drink the kool-aid in this case, instead insisting that another AFD is the appropriate next step, rather than dealing with a problem by simply making it vanish without discussion or consensus. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 11:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Mangoe. This individual is notable solely for his HAARP conspiracy theory, and is more than adequately treated there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)