|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chip Arndt article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on October 6, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.|
This article really needs a page-one rewrite. It reads like a biography essay, and not like an encyclopedia article. It's also pretty over-detailed about the Race itself TheHYPO 04:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The article has been reorganized and parts changed. Thanks to those who helped. Details about the race are pertinent to the achievements of the subject and necessary for clarity to those unfamiliar with it. Mlbedwell 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Removals - discuss here
- Harrow - The history of Harrow (year formed, famous alumni) belongs at Harrow, not here. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Both were athletic, and Lehmkuhl was a pilot and had graduated from the United States Air Force Academy while Arndt had been a pro golfer and Wall Street investment banker. - We already talk about Arndt going to the Academy, his golf history, and his career history above. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- While the two separated shortly after the program originally aired, the image of an actual gay couple unlike any gracing the small screen before seems to remain a positive, indelible image of what can be among many of the millions of Race fans both in the U.S. and around the world. - POV. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, thanks to you, Keith, and others for your input and assistance to a Wiki virgin. As for the addenda regarding Harrow, isn't the purpose of any kind of encylopedia to increase knowledge? At what point can one presume that all potential readers have adequate prior knowledge of everything mentioned in the article to understand everything else included in the article? Were that true, they would not need print encyclopedias or Wiki in the first place. The purpose of the addenda are to emphasize to the reader another one of the subject's achievements; in this case, admission to a prestigious school that few are able to attend. As a Wiki newbie, I must respectfully observe that the ability to electronically link is vastly overused, almost obsessively so, to the detriment of the reader being able to reasonably "one-stop" learn. Just because the ability to insert the link exists should not substitute for adequate, relative information on the original page. Or am I the only one old enough to recall the frustration of telephone white pages listings that read, e.g., "Pastry-see Bakers." But Ma Bell had nothing on the labyrinths created here. Why does it remind me somehow of "The Trouble with Tribbles"?
I have rewritten the passage about "both were athletic...." to make clearer why it is important to reiterate these facts. They are not just "biography." It would be irrelevant to repeat that Arndt was born in Connecticut but other facts about him and Lehmkuhl help explain their place in television and sociopolitical history.
Citations added for sentence labeled POV. Many thanks, and I would appreciate any other suggestions.Mlbedwell 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Even paper encylopedias reference their own articles rather than elaborate on redundant auxiliary matters where they are not primarily relevant.
- My point about the athletic bit in the specific passage I mentioned is that it is redundant -- it is already mentioned earlier in the article.
- As for "obsessive linking," I recommend the articles on Wiki and hypertext. That is, in fact, the whole idea. :) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion of Conflict of Interest
As someone noted, I have worked in a totally volunteer, non-compensated capacity for the subject, Chip Arndt. I am also a co-manager of the information site mentioned, "All About RC." I receive no compensation for that either. Both activities derive from my interest in the program "The Amazing Race" and Arndt's community activity. I perceive no "conflict of interest" anymore than someone, for instance, who might be a member of a discussion group on the late British TV series "The Prisoner" contributing to a Wiki article about it. The orginal creator of this page is unknown to me, though I note in its history that it had been nominated for deletion for a variety of theories but the consensus was to keep it. I have done my best to add only verifiable information that could have been easily supplied by anyone else. Should any subsequent concerns arise, I invite anyone to contact me directly at email@example.com. Best wishes for the New Year to everyone, and particular thanks to those with superior skills who have worked to improve the article in such areas as footnote formatting. - mlbedwell Mlbedwell 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- A idsuccsion group it quite similar to wiki, now operating his website is not, youre an employee of the man, its just unethical (in the sense that impartiality and NPOV (neutral point of view) from a close subject is near impossible), you can still contribute to any other article, but its highly suggested that you add any information you want on articles which you have a overly close relationship with to the talk page here and someone else may add it. But of course this is open source software, and you can do whatever you want. But its usually best that Britanny Spears doesnt edit the Britanny Spears article nor Tom Delay or Nancy Pelosi for that matter or their spouses, children, best friends, employees. Because people just wont critisize them neutrally and they will romantisizingly overhype them too, and chances are thay you will also not matter how noble your intentions and not matter how unbias you try to be.qrc 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Oh yeah, talk to me baby! 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It would seem to me some references are not valid (e.g. forum discussions) and should be removed, and subsequently non-referenced information needs to either be referenced properly, or removed. The reference format for this article is awful. Simply placing (8) and (9) and expecting unfamiliar users to understand what that means OR even expecting experienced users to scroll to the bottom of the page, is unacceptable.
Due to this I've placed the cleanup tag on the article, in place of wikify. I don't see how wikify is as relevant? My 2 cents. Mentality 10:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)