Talk:Michael Arrington

Why can't I edit the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.Gayner (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Laporte Incident

As has been made semi-famous he caused an issue on the Gillmor Gang for being a troll. I'm wondering where do we add/should we add this? Arenlor (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised not to see it when looking for objective coverage. In fact the article is pretty light in general - perhaps it should go in. -- samj _in^out 17:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not historically relevant, not encyclopedic, and it'll be forgotten in a matter of weeks. He's appeared in Time Magazines and has been part of the history of Web 2.0 business coverage, that's why he's on wikipedia. This is not a gossip blog. --24.37.141.122 (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I say that it *is* in fact historically relevant. The people involved were all extremely high profile, the incident was streamed live, and it will no doubt have long term consequences. Just because it was a somewhat unsavoury event doesn’t instantly class it as “gossip”, so long as what’s included is factual and unbiased. To exclude reference to the incident does the article a disservice. 210.54.120.145 (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Biography-wise, I believe that that name calling event in a streaming video is not notable, even if it was linked to from a blog. Compare this importance to the significance of Arrington's effect on startups, and coverage in Time Magazine, Wired, Forbes, The Crunchies, and countless public appearances on television (CNN, Charlie Rose) and elsewhere. The blow up may be relevant for Gilmore Gang podcast web page, because it led to its cancellation which is notable. Adding links to well thought-out articles that analyze and criticize Arrington or TechCrunch can be useful. But I think adding (as it was done) "Leo Laported once called him a troll" doesn't add encyclopedic substance. It was also completely WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to add a section about this. The original questioner here stated that Arrington was made "semi-famous" by this event. Although the poster may not have been familiar with Arrington, and while he is indeed more of a Silicon Valley phenomena, he is a well-known celebrity of Web 2.0 and has been covered by mainstream media. So it's in fact a good thing that this short article shows this poster that being called a troll on a podcast isn't in fact what Arrington is known for, "in the real world". --96.20.57.36 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Time 100 mention

I'm wondering how noteworthy this is, given the number of mentions and the fact that moot, of all people, won. Should this really be in the lede, or should it be mentioned elsewhere, if at all? Throwaway85 (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

notoriety for having a lot of enemies

This trait seems to be completely missing from his article. I always seem to read about him in the news about getting into an argument with someone. This is also the first thing that always come into my head whenever I read his name. Normally I would expect a brief mention of this in wikipedia and a short list of the most notable moments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.219.209.162 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. He even "welcomed" Carol Bartz (who at the time was Yahoo's CEO) onto his program with an introductory sarcastic greeting that included the "F" bomb! That was his opening interaction! I don't care if you're the most devout Christian on the planet or Satan's 'right-hand man' (I personally don't care for the vulgar term at all in any context), you DON'T use the F-bomb in your 'welcoming statement'/greeting to one of your guests on your own show! That's a high mark of ignorance and failure to use common courtesy. Yet he did it because he knew they were on the air and being 'live' limited her ability to tell that idiot to go fly a kite. In essence, he knew she was trapped into staying on his program so she didn't look like the jerk; he knew he could get away with his insincerity. He certainly knows how to manipulate his guests into sticking around for his pointless bickering. I really think his tendency to get into or start arguments has a legitimate place in this article, if sources can be used. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)