Talk:Gary Chartier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Massive Bibliography[edit]

As a general rule, we do not provide substantive lists of an authors publications of smaller than book size; exceptions are made for journal articles or other short forms that are particularly notable. As such, I believe that everything in "Articles", "Book reviews" and "Other" should be deleted from the article. Any thoughts from other editors, or any specific ones on that list that are particularly notable (i.e., that have received substantial discussion in independent sources)? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as a reader, I think more beats less here. As long as information is clearly organized, so I can skip it if I want to, and accurate, I think readers lose out when the amount available is reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ad flag[edit]

The ad flag didn't seem to make sense. The article doesn't feature cheesy advert-style language; it's pretty descriptive. The only adverb phrase seems to be "tepidly," noting that a review isn't especially favorable to the subject. Removed for now; if there's more language that's not NPOV, it might help to identify it so it can be altered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes by Srich[edit]

Please note that Srich's removals are not only good, but, in fact, quite necessary. We can't site personal information by saying "See X county records"; such records would not be allowed per WP:BLPPRIMARY. It is also correct that we don't need to list that he contributes to a blog; we would only do so if an independent source mentioned it (i.e., not the blog itself, and it has to be a reliable source). Finally, some of the language that was removed was non-neutral, like saying that he was "fascinated" by contributions.

There is no need to start discussion first when removals are simply to bring an article in compliance with policy; however, the editor who reinserted the info is welcome to try to justify the inclusion here if they want. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will await comment from User:MilesMoney before redoing the edits. – S. Rich (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Rich, you made a lot of changes all at once, and they're poorly explained and justified. In the spirit of WP:BRD, I thought it would be better to bring it back to how it was before and discuss what you want. Let's start with this. What exactly is your objection? MilesMoney (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this edit by Binksternet [1]. An inline wikilink to La Sierra Academy is the preferred style. And, of course, I agree with the other comments by Qwyrxian. – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
How does this answer my question? MilesMoney (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney, you asked what is the problem with a mention of Albert Blaustein. The problem I see is that Blaustein and Chartier never had a prominent relationship. The only reference connecting the two is Chartier's own blog entry about talking on the phone, then later meeting exactly once, with Blaustein not remembering Chartier. The connection to Blaustein is not shown to be important to Chartier's life and career—there are no secondary sources commenting on the importance. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I asked Rich. Are you Rich now? Are you one person with two accounts? You sure do act like it.
Anyhow, your argument conflicts with WP:ABOUTSELF so it loses. MilesMoney (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
ABOUTSELF says that self-descriptions such as the one by Chartier found in his blog may not "involve claims about third parties". That means we cannot repeat Chartier's claims about Blaustein.
You asked a question on an article talk page. The wiki is for everybody, not restricted to a dialogue between you and Srich. Anybody can comment as they see fit. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Quite so. – S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem for you is that Blaustein is dead, so WP:BLP doesn't apply. Look at the criteria:
1.the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
Correct, it's normal for teachers to mentor kids. does not involve claims about third parties;
A corpse isn't a party, and nothing negative is being said about the dead, either. does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
It's about his personal experiences.
4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
Seriously, does anyone doubt the truth of his statement?
5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.
It's a minor part of the article, but an interesting one.
Since WP:ABOUTSELF overrules your objections, I'm going to restore what you removed. MilesMoney (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You are the one who brought up BLP, not me. BLP is not my problem. ABOUTSELF says (again I quote) that the blog should not "involve claims about third parties". Blaustein is a third party, just like Rothbard might be, or Von Mises. The guideline does not define a third party the way you do; the guideline does not say a third party must be alive. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, it is an exceptional claim to say he was friends with the old guy. We can use the blog to say he was interested in the constitutional theories of Blaustein, but that's about it. – S. Rich (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you know what an exceptional claim is, nor what a "party" is. The problem isn't just that you're wrong about this, but that you're generally abusing WP:RS to get rid of stuff you don't like. You're making it worse by piling on changes to the article without discussion and against consensus. So what's going to happen is that, instead of your reasonable changes going through while the bad ones are blocked, the whole thing has to be reset. MilesMoney (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Rather than saying I don't know what exceptional is, take a look at WP:EXCEPTIONAL. His claim that he was a friend with Blaustein when a teenager fits the criteria in two respects: It is "challenged" in that he does not actually say so (that they were friends) himself. And it is PRIMARY. To explain further, it is un-encyclopedic because forgotten phone calls are not details worth highlighting in a biography, and thus gets challenged editorially. – S. Rich (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't even understand what you're trying to say. Who is the "he" who "does not actually say so [...] himself"? Blaustein? MilesMoney (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The article text (pre-revision [2] ) said "he [Chartier] had become friends with". But the blog simply said he "chatted with" Blaustein. (In fact, he describes Blaustein as a "politically interesting stranger".) So "became friends with" is the claim that is challenged, and it fails to meet the challenge. – S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bleeding heart libertarians.[edit]

Restart discussion, if need be, on whether BHL is RS/UNDUE below. This discussion got off-track. – S. Rich (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There seems to be some unexplained effort to hide Chartier's association with this group. Any excuses? MilesMoney (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what you just said: "There seems to be some unexplained effort to emphasize blog writing done by the subject of this article that's never been discussed in third party sources." Any excuses? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney, are you referring to this edit [3] where I added the BHL blogging? Hhhmmm – it's one of several edits I've made to the article, so perhaps my other edits overshadow the BHL activity. Perhaps its because you think this rather minor aspect of Chartier's writing should get its own section. If there was other RS that discussed his blogging it might deserve more attention. But a sentence, one sentence, mentioning this non-controversial aspect of his activity is quite enough. – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney, I expect that a discussion of text-to-be-included would start with an argument for inclusion. The burden is on the editor wishing to include text.
What is needed to keep the mention of Bleeding Heart Libertarians is a connection made by a secondary source. This newsblog from Forbes appears to suffice. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That's untrue. The BleedHeartLibertarian site itself is a reliable source for identifying who writes for it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I was not arguing WP:RS, I was arguing WP:UNDUE. My original point was that the BHL blog saying Chartier is listed was not shown by you to be significant to Chartier's career. It took me bringing the Forbes newsblog to make it significant. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You can't argue WP:UNDUE because there's no basis for it. Try again. Don't just throw policy names at us; pick one that makes sense. MilesMoney (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
UNDUE is applicable because it says we should gauge our article emphasis based on proportion and "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The problem with Chartier's involvement with BHL is that it was not shown to be prominent until I pointed to Forbes. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You admit that it's prominent, so you're arguing for no good reason. Doesn't help that there's no requirement for prominence in the first place, so it's a pointless argument pointlessly argued. Why do you do this? Why can't you just read the policies and follow them? MilesMoney (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course BHL is reliable for who is listed at its own website. I was never arguing that angle. I was arguing about balance and proportion, trivialities and unnecessary details versus important points about a person's career. The UNDUE argument is unneeded here at Chartier's bio because I found he was noticed by Forbes, but if another biography arises which says the person is listed at BHL, then the UNDUE argument would apply there. As far as reading skill goes, I noticed you dismissed UNDUE without having seen the obvious connection. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you actually read WP:UNDUE or do you just like the way it sounds? I ask because it turns out not to have anything to do with this. In particular, nothing says we need Forbes in order to use an already-reliable source that Forbes mentions. You're making this stuff up as you go along. Please follow policy, instead. Start by reading and understanding policy. MilesMoney (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Strident insistence on ignorance. I'm not arguing reliable sources, and neither is the UNDUE guideline—that was what you alone fastened on to. Everyone else here can plainly see where I quoted the applicable part of UNDUE which is about "proportion ...the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". It was crucial to the question to discover whether Chartier's involvement with BHL was prominent, whether it was mentioned outside of the world of BHL. If you choose not to see it, that is your own decision. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It's becoming really clear that you are not WP:COMPETENT. That's just not what WP:UNDUE says, and anyone with basic English comprehension can see that for themselves. WP:UNDUE is about distinguishing among majority, minority and fringe viewpoints, so that we can give them weight based on their acceptance. You're simply taking a few parts out of context and pretending it supports whatever it is you like, and that's ridiculous. MilesMoney (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Like I just told Specifico, pointing me at WP:Competence is required—an essay—is a clear signal that you have run out of better arguments. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a clear signal that multiple editors have concluded that you are incompetent. Take it at face value. MilesMoney (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Multiple editors have been stymied by good arguments and have resorted to weak ad hominem as a form of compensation. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary Chartier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)