Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RefHistory (talk | contribs) at 00:31, 6 March 2015 (→Promotional and unencyclopedic tone not supported by the given sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles for creation Start‑class

This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article was accepted on 19 January 2013 by reviewer Alexrexpvt (talk · contribs).

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Promotional tone and unhelpful sources

Adjectives such as "acclaimed" or "well-known" are peacock terms that only promote a subject without providing any information. While the section on Benedict's early life had sources mentioning both William S. Benedict and Ruth B. Benedict, the sources did not connect those people to Philip Benedict. We cannot take the similarity of names as evidence that those Benedicts were a family. Significant parts of the remainder of the article, including the promotionally-worded paragraph about the cours d'été, did not cite any references at all. I have (again) removed the content that wasn't supported by the sources. Huon (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the adjectives, please suggest others. Please do not remove whole sections. I am updating sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9194:2F2E:422D:9372 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Please restore content only when you have sources supporting that content, not before. Unreferenced content about living persons can be removed on sight, per WP:BLP. If we can find sources discussing Philip Benedict's parentage, my suggestion would be to simply omit those adjectives - the only reason to discuss, say, his father's acclaim in this article wold be in the context of a (sourced!) discussion of the impact being the son of an acclaimed physicist had on Philip Benedict. Huon (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems fair! I am one of his students. I noticed the page had trailed off a bit recently so I wanted to restore it. He is listed as an alumnus of Washington High, so I am going to put that back there (if that is okay with you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9194:2F2E:422D:9372 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I found the HS source! Pretty amazing what you can dig up with a little google time!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9194:2F2E:422D:9372 (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

One other quick correction -- I think you are misreading his CV. He started as a named chair as an Asst. Prof. at Brown. Then he was promoted to full professor. But he always had the named chair. That is what the "to" means on Academic CVs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9194:2F2E:422D:9372 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't. Misplaced Pages does not consider itself a reliable source, and since the high school article's source doesn't actually say Benedict attended this high school, we should remove him from the list of alumni, not cite ourselves for that claim (if the source had said that Benedict attended this high school we could have re-used the source in this article; citing Misplaced Pages still would have been inappropriate). Regarding the named chair you're right. Huon (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't that seem a little weird to you? It seems that the place to challenge that is on the HS page, not on Phil Benedict's page. It's not really a problem though. I will call tomorrow and get the appropriate citation for his page in the HS yearbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9194:2F2E:422D:9372 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. The Post article actually refers to her family, so I don't see why this was removed. In the future, please do not remove information unless you have a valid reason. You can always add the "citation needed" tag to give others the chance to fill in information. There was no need to casually delete material from a page, especially since your reasons have been invalid on several occasions.

I added the appropriate citation for him attending Wilson HS. That would have been a perfect occasion to have used the "citation needed" tag -- since stating that a famous professor with a PhD graduated from HS is not a controversial statement. Regardless, I added the citation. So we should be all set now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:54A6:8CD2:408F:5C58 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This Washington Post article mentions Philip Benedict? Sorry, I don't see that; could you please quote the relevant sentence(s)?

Also, claims that this "famous professor" is the child of similarly famous parents and went to the same high school as Warren Buffet seem rather promotional to me. Misplaced Pages content should be a summary of what reliable, independent sources have reported about a subject; they shouldn't merely repeat the subject's claims about himself. Since you apparently prefer maintenance tags, I'll add those, but WP:BLP is unequivocal: Unsourced or badly-sourced content about living persons must be removed. Huon (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't self-promotional. He isn't promoting himself. I am reporting that he graduated from High School. Who cares if Buffett went there 20 years earlier? The article does not mention Buffett at all. There is nothing self-promotional about this whatsoever. There are at least five other major academic awards that he has won, none of which are listed on this Wiki page. If anyone was trying to promote him, they would have added those. Instead, we just want to summarized accurately some of the steps in the life of a very important scholar. All of the information is from reliable third party sources, including things published by the University of Geneva on their website.

Lots of Wiki pages say where the person went to school. Who are you to jump all over a poor professor? Why are you doing this? There isn't a single subjective claim in the teaching section. Not one. I honestly don't understand why you are doing on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:A924:1408:EAF7:F234 (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

He acknowledges his mother Ruth in Graphic History (p. vii), and his father in The Huguenot Population of France (dedication page - p. iii). It is really unreasonable for you to require that sort of proof of who his parents are. No other scholar is held to such a high standard. But if you really insist, feel free to stick the references in there yourself.

This grows tiring. You have not explained where the Washington Post article mentions Philip Benedict (it doesn't). There are no third-party sources discussing Philip Benedict's family; mentions in books Benedict himself wrote would not be considered secondary sources. The source mentioning his high school is a newspaper Benedict was associate editor of, not third-party coverage either. The sources for his "training" are his CV, his CV and, for a change, his CV, hosted on his faculty web page, written by himself, not subject to meaningful editorial oversight, definitely not a secondary source. The "Research" section has a single secondary source, the American Historical Association Guide to Historical Literature. The other sources are two societies reporting on awards they themselves bestow, plus a book by Benedict. The "Career" section is once again based only on Benedict's CV, which as explained above is not a secondary source. The "Teaching" section basically says, "Scholars from all over the world each year go on a pilgrimage to Geneva to study at the feet of their master Benedict", which is not a neutral tone (OK, this is worse than what the article actually says, but not by much), and the source for that claim is a University of Geneva web page that does not so much as mention Benedict. Finally, we're told Benedict supervised "important late medieval and early modern historians" - based, once again, on Benedict's CV. I do not think it's appropriate to cite Benedict for how important his students are. Finally we're left with a list of "notable" chapters and articles - who judged their notability? You? Benedict? Only a single such paper gives an indication of notability, having won an award - and the source is once again the organization bestowing the award, which is not a secondary source for its own award. So in summary, there is a single secondary source that mentions Benedict in an article that's to a very large degree based on his own CV. Yet you removed the maintenance tag I added without addressing the problem beyond claiming "Thirteen primary sources out of fourteen sources that mention Benedict is not all that much." I have to disagree. You also removed the "promotes the subject" tag without addressing that concern.

If those awards are significant, surely someone other than Benedict and the organizations bestowing them has written about them? If Benedict is a renowned teacher with many significant PhD students, surely there are independent reports explaining his significance in that regard? Where are the independent assessments of the impact of Benedict's work in peer-reviewed papers written by other historians? While it's nice of Benedict to acknowledge his parents, where are the third-party sources explaining the impact his parentage had on Benedict? In short, who but Benedict himself cares? Misplaced Pages content should focus on what third-party sources report, with primary sources used to flesh out uncontroversial details. "He was born to William S. and Ruth B. Benedict" would be such an uncontroversial detail for which a primary source might be acceptable. "He was born to the acclaimed William S. Benedict and well-known Ruth B. Benedict", not so much - that is promotional spam which you have re-added time and again. You may want to read WP:COI. Huon (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The CV is published by the University, not himself. It is third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.244.254 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There are many sources that discuss Benedict's work. But they are unnecessary for a simple Misplaced Pages page. The sources here are fully sufficient. He does not control the webpage on which these things are published. There is no reason for you to continue to vandalize this page. When the Washington Post publishes stories about a print collector, that means she is well known. The webpage for the Spectroscopy award calls him "widely acclaimed." These are all third party verifications. Come on man, you have to have better things to do with your life than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.244.254 (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is indeed vandalism. You cannot seriously claim Benedict's employer is a secondary source about its employee, and I rather doubt Benedict does not control the content of his own CV published on his department's website. You're reverting every attempt to address the article's obvious shortcomings.Your latest comment is in clear violation of Misplaced Pages policy, namely WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. You keep parading the Washington Post article that does not mention Philip Benedict at all; neither does the Spectroscopy piece; see WP:SYN on why that's not appropriate. With that latest revert you removed sourced informaton. You re-introduced obvious tone issues. I'll ask for more community input at WP:BLP/N on how to deal with the article. Huon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is published by a University, not by Benedict. I don't care what "you rather doubt." Come on man. You have not established any consensus. You are just assuming your opinion is right and messing with other people's hard work. There are lots of Misplaced Pages pages, why are you messing with this one? You obviously don't know anything about the field. You didn't even know how to read a CV. Now you are claiming to know who is behind the CV (with no evidence). So what is your issue? Is this a personal thing for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:9577:4AAB:113A:AEC7 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Establishing consensus" seems impossible if it's just you and me discussing the article. I have taken steps to remedy that and will take further steps to get more eyes on the page if necessary. Until that time, I'll simply say that I have no personal interest in this article or its subject beyond my general interest in improving the encyclopedia and removing spam or badly-sourced content whenever I see it. Huon (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Huon -- I have just discovered you got here after a prior dispute with the article's original author over the airplane article. It is not as if you just stumbled onto this page. That is why you arbitrarily deleted over half of the article just as soon as you saw it (instead of going through the necessary steps or making any attempt whatsoever to locate citations). Your entire experience here has been to delete and discredit, not to build up. It is clear you have a problem with someone else, and you are taking it out on this page.

As far as notable chapters and articles, many of them have won awards. They are published in big time journals. The man has published more real articles than you have published wikipedia pages. It doesn't make sense to list all of them. Here is the long and short of it. There isn't an aspect of this article that you don't have a problem with. Yet as you admit, no one else has a problem with it. You found this page after a conflict on a different article with another author. That isn't fair to Prof. Benedict or to anyone else. You didn't challenge any other name on the Wilson HS page, you just focussed on Benedict. You clearly have a personal issue that you are bringing over here in order to discredit a living person. That is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.191.46 (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Teaching

Hi Nomoskedasticity The latest version of the teaching section (which you deleted) contained updated sources. I think you may have overlooked the fact that his CV was not cited once in this entire section. Every single citation came from third party University press books (Harvard and Toronto) as well as University websites (one in North America, another in Europe). That is a lot of third party citations for two sentences. There are no superfluous adjectives or spammy tones. There is no reason to delete this, considering the proper citations were added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No superfluous adjectives or spammy tones? Then who assessed the importance of those "important late medieval and early modern historians"? You? Themselves? Do you want to claim that his doctoral students' (or their employers') writings are independent sources for the importance of those same doctoral students? Huon (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a fair criticism. We should either provide links to the awards his students have won or remove the adjective. But there is no reason to remove an entire section. The four external third party links (none to his CV) are more than sufficient to prove that he taught these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What we should provide is a reliable source that assesses Benedict's impact as a PhD advisor. Having PhD students is something of a given for a professor; which independent source noted Benedict's efforts in that area as something special and noteworthy? I have commented on the other half of the removed section before; the tone was unencyclopedic, and the source didn't even mention Benedict. (It wasn't independent either, of course; that's something of a given for this article.) Huon (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Harvard Press and Toronto Press books do say his impact as an adviser. They mention that he was fundamental to their development. They are published by elite academic presses. How is this not sufficient proof? The section doesn't say he was the best supervisor ever. It just says he supervised them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Roelker Prize

What is your justification for removing the mention of his Roelker Prize? It is listed on the SCSC's website: http://www.sixteenthcentury.org/prizes/roelker/ Why not simply fix the link or add a tag? Why delete the whole thing? Isn't the impulse to destroy rather than fix the definition of vandalism?

My justification is that Faith, Fortune, and Social Structure in Seventeenth-Century Montpellier hasn't won the Roelker Prize, and the source doesn't say it has. The source says Graphic History: What Readers Knew and Were Taught in the Quarante Tableaux of Perrissin and Tororel won the Prize in 2006 (except they misspell the name of the paper; it's actually "Tortorel"), and I added that myself. Ask 38.111.244.254 why they felt a need to revert that edit. I would agree that revert was vandalism. Removing incorrect information, however, isn't. Huon (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For clarification: On Misplaced Pages, "vandalism" is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages". If I were removing content to make Misplaced Pages worse, say by blanking a section and making it say "Penis!" instead, that would be vandalism. However, I'm removing badly-sourced promotional content, or even incorrect content, to make Misplaced Pages better. That's not vandalism. Conversely, turning an encyclopedia article into a promotional piece of puffery may be vandalism even if it makes the article longer. Huon (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain how Harvard and Toronto University Press books written by people who are not Phil Benedict are "badly sourced?" Can you also please explain how saying that he supervised people is "promotional?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.220.239 (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

He supervised important researchers? How is that not promotional? And "people from institutions throughout Europe come to attend a conference he teaches at"? Just to see him?

Those books are by the people in question themselves; they are not a third-party assessment of Benedict's qualifications of a teacher. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume Benedict was a negligent PhD supervisor and gave grades by the roll of dice - those who "won" in this process would probably tend to still laud him. Conversely, let's assume he's a dedicated PhD supervisor who tries his best to help his students - those who fluke out still would tend to criticize him. Thus we cannot just take his students' assessment for his qualifications as a PhD supervisor. If Benedict is a notable teacher who ahs supervised many notable students, surely someone other than himself and them has commented on that aspect of his career? Huon (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The section is not about Benedict's "qualities as a teacher." They are about who he has taught. If he says he taught these people, then indeed that is a primary source. If someone else says in a University Press history book that he was their teacher, then that is a secondary source. If I used that same citation on the student's page, that would be a primary source. But since it is someone else writing about Benedict as a teacher, that makes it a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:854D:44EE:51D8:7641 (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The basic question is, who cares? Yes, he was advisor for some PhD students. So is practically every single professor I know. Hey, I myself feature on someone's list of PhD students, and I could easily write about having been taught by them on my website. Does that mean I should get mentioned in that professor's article? Hardly. Why are the PhD students remarkable in Benedict's case? Because he says so? Because they say so? (And no, people taught by Benedict discussing having been taught by Benedict are not secondary sources; see WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.) Huon (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

People who are interested in Phil Benedict care. I care. You obviously care. Otherwise you wouldn't be spending so much time on this page. But here is a basic question for you: what is your basis for deleting this information? At first you claimed that a CV produced by the University of Geneva was a primary source, even thought there is zero evidence that Philip Benedict wrote it. While this is disputed, you are entitled to your opinion. But then I deleted all mentions of the CV from this section. The sources are all from University Press books and a University website not at all associated with Phil Benedict (such as Reed College), as well as the website that discusses the cours d'été. So now that your initial stated reason for deleting the material has been removed, you are now claiming a different reason. So here are my two basic questions for you: 1) You came to this page to continue a fight you started with someone else on the Smisek page. Why are you punishing Phi Benedict for a dispute you have with someone else? 2) Why are you changing your rationale for deleting a perfectly well sourced section on his teaching?

I think you need to read that section more carefully:

Benedict talking about Benedict's teaching = Primary source.

Taylor talking about Benedict's teaching = Secondary source.

As WP:PRIMARY says, primary sources are not just sources written by the subject himself, but also those "by people who are directly involved" and "close to an event", like his employer's website or his students. What we'd need is an independent source for that section. His students are not independe And I can find myself asking for independent sources on this talk page as far back as February 26. Furthermore, I doubt Soldiers of Christ or Journey to the East: The Jesuit Mission to China, 1579–1724 discuss Benedict's teaching in any detail - at best the authors will mention Benedict among the acknowledgements.

Since you keep bringing up the "dispute" I had: That editor was a sockpuppeteer who used multiple accounts to add non-neutral, badly sourced content to a biographical article. Checking such an editor's contributions to see if similar problems occur elsewhere (and finding another non-neutral, badly sourced biographical article) is not "punishing Phi Benedict", nor is it "continuing a fight I started" - unless you mean the endless fight for a well-sourced, neutral encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You came here because of a dispute you had on another page. You are not here because you want to make the page better.

The policy does not say what you claim it says. Here is a direct quote: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors." There are no interpretive claims or analysis in this section. Zero. The section does not claim that he is a good or bad teacher. It just says that he taught these students. That is not analysis. That is fact. Fact backed up by secondary sources -- History books published by two of the best university presses in the world.

Even if these were primary sources (and they ARE NOT primary sources!), this would still be allowable. Here is another direct quote from WP:PRIMARY : "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."RefHistory (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Roelker Prize -- Need Help filling in the doi and ISSN

I corrected the Roelker prize section by adding the appropriate article. But I am not sure how to add the doi or ISSN info. Could someone please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I need help with two other formatting issues. Could someone volunteer their coding skills to fixing footnote #9? Finally, in the Roelker Prize article, I am having difficulty masking his name. For consistency's sake, it would be better if it would appear as "_______" just like the previous listings. But I don't have those coding skills. Can someone please lend a hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Primary vs. Secondary Sources

There has been debate in the other sections of this talk page whether a CV published by Benedict's employer can be used on this page. Huon has even gone so far as arguing that history books authored by other scholars and published by two of the best University presses in the world are in fact primary sources. I disagree with this interpretation. Regardless, I would like to remind everyone of official wikipedia policy. This is a direct quote from WP:PRIMARY : "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

So the question is, are these sources reliable? Is the editor using the sources to make interpretations? Are they being misused? These are the questions that should frame these disputes. The use of primary sources does not merit the removal of material; only the misuse of primary sources merits action.

There is already a source tag at the top of the page. So there is no reason to remove this material unless you can argue that it isn't reliable.RefHistory (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No, A CV published by the employer is not a reliable source. the purpose of a CV is to be self promotional, and an employer has motivation to publicly enhance the reputation of those involved with it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Which specific line of this particular academic CV do you find unreliable? I have read it several times. It seems to accurately reflect his activities. It certainly isn't "self" promotional if he didn't publish it.

It is obviously "self" promotional for the organization to pimp the credentials of the people associated with it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That word ("pimp") is completely inappropriate and over the top here. There is nothing promotional about a rather bland list of academic tasks performed.

If this were an article on the University of Geneva, then it would indeed be "self" promotional to cite their own website. But it isn't. This is an article on Phil Benedict. Since the page is published by an entity who isn't Phil Benedict, then it can't be "self" promotional. In fact, the University of Geneva's own Misplaced Pages page cites the UNIGE website several times. If you have a real issue with this, you should take it up there.

I am open to considering your position if you can identify a specific way in which this source was misused. For instance, was any of the information inaccurate? If so, then I guarantee you that I will be the first to delete the inaccurate information. But it is invalid to argue that a source published by a reputable university (founded in 1559) is entirely invalid without any specific evidence of inaccuracies or misuse. The source does not seem to violate Misplaced Pages policy WP:PRIMARY.

In the meantime, perhaps you could help out and demonstrate your good will by adding the doi and ISSN stuff. RefHistory (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Promotional and unencyclopedic tone not supported by the given sources

The article is still full of promotional, flowery language, particularly in parts not supported by the given sources. Problematic sources include:

• The sources used for his parents may in fact discuss Benedict's parents - but we cannot tell since they don't mention that they are his parents. They don't mention Benedict at all, and the only reason I can think of why RefHistory would want to keep them is because they're among the only reliable third-party sources in the article - they only happen not to mention the subject. Policy violated: WP:SYN.
• The sentence about "Graduate students, doctoral candidates, and professors travel to Geneva every summer from institutions across Europe and North America" is also supported by a source that does not mention Benedict. Rather, it's the official website of the institution holding that graduate school, not third-party coverage of that graduate school. Furthermore, the language is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article and portrays Benedict as the target of pilgrimage. If this is indeed a notable summer school, and Benedict's involvement is a significant part of his biography, we should find an independent source and reword the sentence to something along these lines: "Benedict is among the organizers of the Institut d'histoire de la Réformation's international graduate seminars (cours d'été)." Policies and guidelines currently violated: WP:V, WP:FLOWERY.
• The section headings "Notable Articles" and "Notable Chapters in Edited Volumes" contain judgemental adjectives that should be removed. Also, Misplaced Pages does not use title case. If there's a need to point out that these are just some of Benedict's writings, we should use "Selected articles" and "Selected chapters in edited volumes". Guidelines currently violated here: WP:PEACOCK, MOS:HEADINGS.
• The claim that Benedict "is the product of the Washington, D.C. public school system" is either a lengthy way to say nothing if it's meant to say he went to school in Washington D.C. (because we say so immediately afterwards anyway), or it's original research if it's meant to indicate that the public school system had a lasting and defining influence on Benedict - I don't have access to the yearbook, but the school newspaper definitely does not say so. That sentence should be reworded to something along the lines of, "He attended Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington, graduating in 1966", with exactly the same content and less verbosity. Policies and/or guidelines violated here: WP:FLOWERY, possibly WP:OR.

I had already fixed some of those issues and tagged others, but any attempt to edit this article gets quickly reverted by RefHistory, who displays ownership issues. If no explanation is forthcoming why the issues I pointed out are in fact compatible with Misplaced Pages's guidelines, I'll reintroduce my fixes and the tags. Huon (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You are the one displaying ownership WP:OWN ownership issues, Huon. The only reason you are here is that you had a disagreement with someone on another page. Now you are here to cause trouble. No matter how many changes are made, no matter how many sources are added, you still complain. You have even selectively removed Benedict from the alumni of Wilson HS, despite the fact that there is more evidence of him graduating there than anyone else on the list. You are clearly trying to take ownership based on a past grudge. This is vandalism.

• You can change the word "notable" to "selected." I have no problem with that. But you can't delete all adjectives, because it is not an exhaustive list of his articles and chapters.
• You are reading way too much into the Washington DC school system line. Nothing is implied. It does not violate any policies. There is no flowery language. There is no judgmental language. There is no original research. A secondary source (the yearbook) confirms it, as does the fact that he was an assoc. editor of the newspaper. This is a reasonable use of sources. Your quibbling here is a perfect demonstration of you harboring ownership issues. This language has been accepted for several years now. You are the only one who has raised issues with it. As such, I will revert any attempt for you to dominate this page without good cause. And there is no good reason to mess with that sentence.
• The cours d'été application indeed indicates that students come from all over. The other source indicate that he teaches these courses.
• You have consistently misstated Misplaced Pages policies. You need to cite a specific line from policy in order to claim that something is unallowable, especially since you already misstated about the policy on primary sources.

• Start-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/19 January 2013
• Accepted AfC submissions
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles