Talk:William K. Black

Infobox and Persondata

I found Mr. Black's birthplace, Detroit Michigan (from here: http://www.martindale.com/xp/legal/Professional_Resources/Law_Schools/schl0986.xml) and I think I have properly added a Persondata box to the Wiki page. This box contains the information required to make an Infobox but I don't know how to do that?? Help?

{{helpme}}

Affenbart (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. See this diff to follow the markup added. You got confused between metadata and infoboxes which are completely different things. Metadata isn't even visible in articles (thus why it's called metadata:-) By the way, there are additional categories of information that can be added to the infobox. See the template page for information. You can just grab any information categories listed and mix and match depending on what is relevant to the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. Since you're a new user and seem receptive to information--new sections on talk pages normally (almost exclusively) are added below each older sections. What I mean is that it is unusual for this section I'm writing in to have been created above the section below it, rather than after it, Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. I put my comment at the top to mesh with the flagging -- should I reset those to "no" at this point? I mean the yellow stuff at the top of the page asking for infobox and persondata. Affenbart (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any flags / yellow boxes on the article?  Chzz  ►  13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick attention Chzz. If you look at the top in "edit" mode you will see that the flags were there but have been "unset" -- some person or robot switched them from =yes to =no after my last post here. Affenbart (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have dropped a note. I removed them based on your post, noting this is my edit summary (diff for removal. Learning how page histories work will allow you to easily track who did what in every change to any Wikipedia page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability tag

It's a little hard for me to see why there would be a "notability" problem for Mr. Black.

His book is selling at #18 on Amazon for all nonfiction, #2 in Finance, and #1 in Economic History.

The banking crisis is the single most important problem facing the world and the U.S. today, and Mr. Black seems to have a unique perspective since he helped to solve the Savings and Loan crisis.

It's not all that easy to find "secondary sources" writing about his biographical information but that is one reason I thought he needed a Wikipedia page.

I have no doubt that more people are going to come looking for information about him in the next several months.

Deleting this page would be, IMO, short sighted and dumb.

Affenbart (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is a code of conduct for those that edit or create content for Wikipedia. It includes the concept of Civility. Your comment concerning the deletion of the article does not follow accepted Wikipedia practices. Please review the section noted above. Thanks...

Now on to the article. The article has not been nominated for deletion, a tag has been placed on it questioning appropriateness of its inclusion in Wikipedia. The tag has been placed on the article because it lacks "reliable,secondary sources about the topic."

A major criteria for acceptance as an article is the concept of Notability. Please review Notability for People and Notability for Books for information concerning how to establish notability for the article.

Thanks and good luck. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know on my talk page. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no question whatsoever that this person meets the WP criteria for notability. The gentleman was an important bank regulator, is the author of a recent book and an academic. There are MANY people on WP with far less impressive credentials.
The only question is why this comes up when Black has just appeared as a guest for one-half hour on Bill Moyer's Journal. Perhaps he's said something that aggravates some important people ... that's notable enough. You'll need a better red-herring than that ... and a full AFD discussion.
As for civility, there's nothing uncivil about Affenbart's comment. If it lacks 'reliable secondary sources', and that indeed is *a* reason for raising the notability question, simply ask for more citations. Then wait the usual appropriate time. Twang (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the support here Twang. I had been puzzling over TTony's "Civility" comment. I certainly wasn't aiming the comment at him or at any individual. I suppose that I am a little bothered that it seems easier to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for a second rate porn actor than a best selling author. That strikes me as a little "d*mb" if my understanding of the situation is correct. As for the timing of TTony's flagging, I should point out that I started the page only this morning, and that I started it after seeing Black on Bill Moyers and then being rather shocked that he had no page here. A simple Google search will reveal many articles about Mr. Black but many of them are in response to the Moyers appearance. Affenbart (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So. let's all take a deep breath...me included. The comment about civility referred to the, "short sighted and dumb" statement. If I took it out of context or was hyper sensitive, my apologies.

Getting back to the article, all that needs to take place is provide appropriate references. Additionally, I might point out that, in spite of what it may feel like, it is not "...easier to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for a second rate porn actor than a best selling author." I also hope you will not let this misunderstanding discourage you from contributing from Wikipedia. Again, my best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on a further review of the article I removed the tag. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You also did some great work on the structure of the article. Thanks for removing the tag and thanks for improving the page.

Affenbart (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

William K. Black on Alex Jones new movie

William K. Black appears on Alex Jone's new movie the fall of the republicwarlord2080 (talk) 2:30, 27 October 3009 (UTC)

William Black in Capitalism: A Love Story

In Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore, William is referred to as "Bill Black". I'm not sure how, but perhaps someone should make it so when you search "Bill Black" his name shows up in the search? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.13.24 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Book: The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry

Why his book is not in the reference area: http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/blabes.html

Book: The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry

Why his book is not in the reference area: http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/blabes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.148.67 (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

among?

if there is anyone who needs a full bibliography it is this guy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.130.22 (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Name(s)

"Bill Black"? Is "Bill" a name of his? It's not listed as one of his name on his Wikipedia page.

UMKC School of Law (where he works?) has a page on him titled "William K. Black". But the description begins with "Bill Black".

Where else is he referred to as Bill? Should Bill be added to the list of his names? Or should it be noted that he is also known as "Bill Black"?

Qtax (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That alias is given in Wikidata:William K. Black. "Bill" is a common nickname for "William". Do we need to be more explicit in this article? DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)