Talk:John Naisbitt

Alpha Phi Alpha

So at which of his three universities was he an A-Phi-A? Or is he an honorary member? The fraternity's website has a substantial list of notable brothers and he's not on there. In fact, he not on wikipedia's "List of Alpha Phi Alpha Brothers." This claim needs a citation. 68.215.207.31 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoring category to Naisbitt page

A couple of days ago, Carolmooredc removed the "Radical centrist writers" category from under the John Naisbitt biography. On the history (of changes) page she wrote, "need to add ref'd material to article before can make unusual claim and add to category."

Today, I have restored the category. But Carol's concern is valid, and I would like to address it here in three ways:

(1) Naisbitt's identification with radical centrism is not an "unusual claim." In the wonderful "Participatory Democracy" chapter of Megatrenda, on page 178 of the paperback edition, he writes - in bolded type - "The politics of left and right are dead; all the action is being generated by a radical center." He then spends three paragraphs explaining. Extrinsic evidence is also availasble. For example, Naisbitt was a founding advisor to Mark Satin's "post-liberal" political newsletter New Options, and Satin subsequently wrote a book called Radical Middle (both references at the Satin Wikipedia bio).

The John Naisbitt bio is brief. If it was going to discuss Naisbitt's empathy for radical centrism, it would also - to be balanced - have to discuss his support for / enthusiasm for / fascination with a myriad of other subjects as well ... the guy is nothing if not eclectic! I do not have the knowledge (or time) to do this.

Therefore, I have inserted "Radical centrist writers" as a category, at the very bottom of John's bio. I think it is a good solution to the problemm - informative but not intrusive.

(2) I appreciate what I feel is Carol's underlying concern here - that people will be tagged with categories that only partially or imperfectly define them. One reason Wikipedia has hundreds of categories is, surely, so that mutifaceted people like Naisbitt will be put into as many categories as they deserve. I am sure that will happen over time. In the meantime, what I have done - in response to Carol's comment - is to insert, at the top of the "Category: Radical cebntrist writers" page, a note making it crystal-clear tthat being listed there is not meant to imply that radical centrism is the dominan theme in any listed wwriter's work.

(3) Last but not least, I have made sure that every snngle person listed on the "Category:Radical centrist writers" page is linked on the main Radical centrism page. You will find the John Naisbitt quote above in one of the Notes there.

Lotta work you inspired me to do Carol. But this is how Wikipedia gets better. - Babel41 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's important, put it in the article. That would have been faster and easier than your explanation :-) And that goes for all the other places you put it. It's just being responsible so we don't confuse readers and leave them wondering. CarolMooreDC 22:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, now we're going in circles. I hope you will respect my reasoning enough to let the category remain on John's bio page. - Babel41 (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I should have just quoted policy:

Wikipedia:Category#Articles:

Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. (etc a couple more paragraphs)

It's a matter of showing your interest is in improving the encyclopedia and not just pushing an agenda without verifying your points. It takes a while to get used to it, but editing is more satisfying when you do. ;-) CarolMooreDC 04:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)