Revision as of 00:14, 7 December 2014 editGRuban (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers31,423 edits →Notability: What event?← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:17, 7 December 2014 edit undoRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →NotabilityNext edit → | ||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:::::::::Coverage in the NYT and Al Jazeera America is ]. He's certainly no Helen Keller.—] (]) 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | :::::::::Coverage in the NYT and Al Jazeera America is ]. He's certainly no Helen Keller.—] (]) 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::: What ''event'' is the 1E there, please? --] (]) 00:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | :::::::::: What ''event'' is the 1E there, please? --] (]) 00:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::::Whatever got him covered by NYT and AJA in the first place.—] (]) 00:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:17, 7 December 2014
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fredrick Brennan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brittle bone disease in lede
This is to explain my placing Fredrick Brennan's brittle bone disease in the article lead (and restoring it when removed).
I can imagine the reasons for removing it: it's not what he wants to be known for, it wasn't something under his control, it's not something he enjoys, it's not a good thing, it shouldn't be part of our one sentence summary of his bio, we should be nice and hide it in the article body as a minor detail. However, per WP:LEDE, the article lead needs to summarize the article, and half the article is about his brittle bone disease, so that needs to be in the lead. Similarly the first half of the sources, including the big ones, New York Times and Al Jazeera America, don't even touch on 8chan, the AJ article and video are completely about his brittle bone disease, and the NYT and PoliceOne article are mostly about how it affected his being robbed. We don't write articles about what people might want to be known for, we write articles about what they are known for. As unfortunate as it is, his osteogenesis imperfecta is a big part of that, so needs to be proportionately reflected in the lede.
I also want to give the common name "brittle bone disease", alongside the medical/Latin name, "osteogenesis imperfecta", since this is neither a medical nor a Latin article, and darn few readers will know what OI is. The common name describes it fairly well, it's used in the title of the AJA article and video, and the link goes to the same place for those who want more details.
As a preemptive and more personal note, I realize that this article is unavoidably part of the GamerGate controversy thingie (heck, the first thing anyone did to the article once I pushed was slap a big banner saying as much on the top of the talk page!), and I gather that one of the first things editors ask when meeting each other on such pages is "what side are you on"?. I have my suspicions that is what Ryulong was really asking on my talk page before being blocked for GamerGate warring. I however, am not on either side, I am simply not interested in that kerfluffle, and have neither bought a video game nor read a for-pay game review in a large number of years. I wrote the article because I saw a highly interesting personal story. That personal story is not synonymous with GamerGate; it's about a rather young man with a big hurdle to overcome who has despite that made a name for himself on the 'net in a short time. If I can find reliable sources, I'd love to add more that I've found in less reliable ones - more about how he grew up, and his Wizardchan days, and his other sites, for example. He's not just a facet of GamerGate, he's a person. If I'm wrong about this guess, and the other editors here are also not interested in GamerGate as such - great, I'll be happy to be wrong. --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Notability
(I'm breaking this section off, as it's no longer about brittle bone disease in lead.--GRuban (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC))
- No, I was asking why this man is notable separately from 8chan or at all considering the sourcing is poor and most of it regards Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- "The sourcing is poor" when it includes the New York Times, Al Jazeera America, New York Magazine, and Le Monde? That's generally considered excellent sourcing. "Most of it regards Gamergate", when there are 11 sources, and 6 don't mention GamerGate at all? That's not considered "most", in the definitions of the word I've found. You'll notice the article has five paragraphs outside the lead, in which one deals with GamerGate. I propose you're looking at the article through POV-tinted glasses. The world does not revolve around GamerGate. Really it doesn't. --GRuban (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- What about these sources support his notability unto himself? What makes him notable? What is it that supports his notability? These are standard questions to ask of all articles regardless of whatever POV you think I possess.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Er... WP:GNG? --GRuban (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do the articles support his notability? Do they show why he is someone of note? Has he done anything of note outside of owning 8chan? Is he the major focus of these articles you've found? We have to be sure about see things otherwise there shouldn't be an article on someone notable for one thing and one thing only.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Brennan overcomes WP:LOWPROFILE (branch of WP:BLP1E) by being a significantly noted subject in each reliable source, and so his notability need not be questioned.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:LOWPROFILE is an essay and not an aspect of policy like WP:BLP1E. I am questioning his notability because none of the sources seem to suggest he is independently notable of anything.
- New York Times, Police One, and Al Jazeera are all human interest pieces that do not suggest that he is notable.
- HuffPost Live and David Pakman are interviews which do not unto themselves prove notability.
- Le Monde has Brennan's name 3 times in its larger piece on chan culture
- NY Magazine and Daily Dot are more on 8chan than they are on Brennan.
- I doubt that the minimal coverage in these pre-Gamergate sources about one event in his life and his creation of 8chan, to which is more the topic of discussion than Brennan himself, qualifies as meeting WP:NBIO.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see your point, but that's not our definition of notability. He meets WP:GNG, which is. He's been covered in depth by the New York Times and Am Jazeera America, and though you want to argue that that doesn't count for whatever reason, it does. He's notable because he's a young man who's overcome a major disability to have done something important with his life, and the fact that the more in depth pieces focus on the disability rather than the image board doesn't exclude them. It's all about him, both the disability and the image board. See you at WP:AFD, I guess.--GRuban (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Coverage in the NYT and Al Jazeera America is WP:BLP1E. He's certainly no Helen Keller.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- What event is the 1E there, please? --GRuban (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever got him covered by NYT and AJA in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- What event is the 1E there, please? --GRuban (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Coverage in the NYT and Al Jazeera America is WP:BLP1E. He's certainly no Helen Keller.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see your point, but that's not our definition of notability. He meets WP:GNG, which is. He's been covered in depth by the New York Times and Am Jazeera America, and though you want to argue that that doesn't count for whatever reason, it does. He's notable because he's a young man who's overcome a major disability to have done something important with his life, and the fact that the more in depth pieces focus on the disability rather than the image board doesn't exclude them. It's all about him, both the disability and the image board. See you at WP:AFD, I guess.--GRuban (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:LOWPROFILE is an essay and not an aspect of policy like WP:BLP1E. I am questioning his notability because none of the sources seem to suggest he is independently notable of anything.
- Brennan overcomes WP:LOWPROFILE (branch of WP:BLP1E) by being a significantly noted subject in each reliable source, and so his notability need not be questioned.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do the articles support his notability? Do they show why he is someone of note? Has he done anything of note outside of owning 8chan? Is he the major focus of these articles you've found? We have to be sure about see things otherwise there shouldn't be an article on someone notable for one thing and one thing only.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Er... WP:GNG? --GRuban (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- What about these sources support his notability unto himself? What makes him notable? What is it that supports his notability? These are standard questions to ask of all articles regardless of whatever POV you think I possess.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- "The sourcing is poor" when it includes the New York Times, Al Jazeera America, New York Magazine, and Le Monde? That's generally considered excellent sourcing. "Most of it regards Gamergate", when there are 11 sources, and 6 don't mention GamerGate at all? That's not considered "most", in the definitions of the word I've found. You'll notice the article has five paragraphs outside the lead, in which one deals with GamerGate. I propose you're looking at the article through POV-tinted glasses. The world does not revolve around GamerGate. Really it doesn't. --GRuban (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)