Talk:Ken Jacobs

Link to Azazel Jacobs's page

this page needs a link to his son's Wikipedia page ~2026-57240-3 (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

•  Done--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Text-source integrity issues

I've rolled back to a previous version. When I was looking through the articles, there were serious issues around text-source integrity, with lots of stuff that was either never mentioned in the source or was plagiarized. These were the bigger ones that stuck out:

• A quote from Manohla Dargis didn't appear in the source.
• The first paragraph of the Binghamton section, including an anecdote about a seminar and the emeritus status, was mostly unsupported by the Artforum articles, which give little more than dates.
• Basically the whole Star Spangled to Death section was unsupported by the sources, including a quotation attributed to Jacobs.
• A quote about the CU Boulder archive didn't appear in the source. A separate bit about Jacobs's students attributed to the same website is never mentioned there.
• The quote from the section about Flo was cited correctly, but the text it's part of is pasted word for word from a BFI obituary.
• A now-removed image had a caption that was also plagiarized from a NYT obituary.

Other portions I checked were similar, going into a level of detail the source never went into. This what it looked like before the revert, I'd support reinstating anything that can be verified (@Mr.choppers you may have had a chance to do some of this already), but plagiarized text and false sourcing info seem like pretty egregious errors. @Thisismartin Can you help us understand what happened here? hinnk (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thisismartin seems to be here only to edit this article, not sure if they have any familiarity with wp guidelines or basic copyright rules. My edits were strictly in the nature of cleaning up referencing, I have zero interest in this particular Ken Jacobs (although I know several other Ken Jacobses) and I did not check for veracity or plagiarism. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess that means that the expanded version needs to be reviewed closely if it's gonna be re-added then. I've worked on two related articles, so I'm really glad someone took a stab at expanding this one and I'll try and spend some more rescuing the parts that are verifiable. If anyone else wants to make an attempt, the references there are generally useful, but the text of the article often doesn't line up. hinnk (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)