Talk:Rob Brezsny

Untitled

I'm concerned that this page refers to "many surprisingly accurate, astute forecasts" without providing any documentation. I think this should be cut. Anyone? Palaverist 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. John Carter 21:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• I second that. 24.255.34.200 (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)acc78

"Cut it" or provide some strong examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.100.40 (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Peacock template

User:Fordmadoxfraud added a peacock template to this article. The user may not wish to directly improve the article but providing specifics would be helpful. Which phrases/words/paragraphs did you find promotional without imparting any real information ? I'm reading the peacock template info now and the list of words and phrases to look for is daunting. "Peacock terms" - clever. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire paragraph headed "Astrologer" is uncited, unencyclopedic in tone, preeningly POV, and reads like dust jacket copy from one of Brezsny's books. Sentences like "Many have attempted to imitate him, but it rarely comes off." belong in a press kit, not an encyclopedia article. Ford MF (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the Astrologer section should be rewritten. It appears most or all of that was written in 2006 by Eric Francis, another astrologer and apparently a fan. However, Brezsny's writings are unique - especially in the astrology column world. Remarking on his extraordinary style is within and encouraged by the guidelines on peacock terms. I'll try to communicate this without sounding "preeningly POV" or dust jacket copy. At any rate, this section needs improvement. Any other areas of the article that you consider peacockish ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Music career

The subject has been in touch with me complaining about the recent removals. I explained that the promotional blurbs were against policy and he understands this. But he asserts that his musical career is notable and I agree. Being a member of a notable band which has its own article, Worldwide Entertainment War is notable. So is having written a song on a Jefferson Starship album. So the problem is sourcing, not notability.

I have suggested that he create an account and supply sources here on the talk pages, as I don't currently have the bandwidth to do the research. Rather than remove the material again, which is neither negative or disputed, please consider looking for sources instead.

Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the article to the version prior to edits by User:Drmies. We need to improve the citations, not wholesale delete relevant sections of a biography of a living person. His edits removed the sections on the person's music career and writing career. The Amazon citations should now be replaced with better citations or removed. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• The subject can complain all they want, but we are not going to turn Wikipedia into a collection of resumes full of links and unverified praise. Those are BLP violations. User:Doctorfree, if you wish to accuse me of malicious vandalism, you can do so at WP:ANI. In the meantime, the article should be expanded but only a. with references to reliable sources; b. in neutral language; c. without linkspamming. That the subject is an author doesn't mean we're going to link their stuff. And you may want to work on these references. User:Skyerise, that I removed that awful and promotional content is proof enough of the fact that it's disputed. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the poor choice of language in my edit comment. Let's assume everyone is of good intent at this point and we just want to improve the article. User:Drmies reversion of my most recent edits does not, in my opinion, improve the article. It removes valid content, deletes citations substantiating claims made in the article, restores a citation with a broken link, restores erroneous citation needed templates, and leaves the page less informative. Further, why don't we discuss such significant large wholesale changes to a page on a living person here on the talk page rather than engage in reversions of reversions of reversions? User:Drmies, could you give us a concise statement of your concerns with specific pointers to what and where in the article your concerns are demonstrated? Several of us have been working for over a decade on this article and wish to preserve the relevant and appropriate information it contains. For now I am reverting to my last edit while we discuss this in greater detail and come to consensus. Thanks! Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

So you are just continuing with reinstating unverified content and link spam. First things first: I am going to remove that set of links to articles again, and I'll drop the appropriate template on your talk page. It may be that with 877 article edits you are simply not aware of our editing guidelines and conventions, or with the BLP, but this is simply not OK. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No, if you bother to read the talk page upon which your are commenting you would see that both editors (myself included) discussing these citations agreed they needed to be improved and Amazon blurbs should be replaced/removed. My reversion to the last consensus edit was intended to provide the best starting point from which to address the identified issues. Your modifications had removed relevant appropriate material, introduced errors, reintroduced older already addressed issues, also reintroduced questionable links and citations, and was a much poorer starting point going forward. Further, your wholesale changes were made prior to participating in the talk page discussion already underway. I am baffled by your addition of a User talk page spam template on my talk page. That seems uncalled for and unnecessary. May I suggest using the talk page to first communicate with the person before adding their talk page to the spam category? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

List of potential sources

• http://www.popmatters.com:80/books/reviews/t/televisionary-oracle.shtml
• Gnosis magazine, Issue 32, "Pop Culture and the Esoteric." Article is "Audio Magicians: A portrait of esotericism in sound, from Firesign Theatre to World Entertainment War." by Peter Stenshoel and Jay Kinney. page 40.

Proposed revisions

Let's discuss proposed revisions here. I'd like to start with a couple of changes I made yesterday but which User:Drmies reverted. These are the two places where I removed a citation needed tag. In the intro I replaced it with two web citations pointing to articles from the Monterey County Weekly and the Weekly Alibi. These articles contain published statements on the duration and distribution size of Brezsny's astrology column. I assumed this was what the citation needed was referencing. If there is a reading of this that indicates otherwise then please clarify. Otherwise, I do not see any need to revert that edit and we should retain those references. The other citation needed was simply removed since I think it was placed there prior to the Wikilink to World Entertainment War where the page on the band lists Brezsny as the a member. If you believe a citation is needed could you explain why? It is, of course, easy enough to find references for Brezsny's membership in the band. We could just add those. If we can come to consensus on these two issues then we can quickly move on to additional issues. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• You keep talking about this band, failing to notice that I left that (unverified) section intact in my last revert--yes, unverified, because Discogs isn't that reliable a source, and being listed on Discogs doesn't mean something is important enough to mention. More interesting is the puffery you reinstated, "Brezsny is a well-known horoscope columnist, author, and singer/songwriter...", sourced to this reference, which does not verify that. And even if it did, that's not how we write biographies. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Wait, Doctorfree. You're actually a doctor, so you did science, with reliable sources and stuff, and you reinstated content that's basically blurbs lifted from Amazon, [1] and [2]? Das crazy. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We are attempting to improve the content and citations. That is why we are discussing the page here. Yes, we should excise any puffery and yes, we should delete/modify/improve inappropriate or insufficient citations. I do not have any problem with removing the Amazon blurbs or replacing them with better content or citations. Statements by someone like Tom Robbins on the nature of another author's work is not, in my opinion, meaningless puffery but I'm not here to defend those bits of the article. You removed the Bibliography section and continue to refer to portions of it as some sort of link dump. The intention of the Bibliography is to indicate to the reader what works the author has published. If it is the fact that some of them are external links then perhaps we can fix that by simply listing the works without the appropriate link although I would first like to read the Wikipedia guidelines on how to handle links to an author's works. Thanks for your collaboration on this but let's leave snarky remarks about me out of the discussion :) Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't get it: those things are blurbs. We don't cite blurbs. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Are the citations to the Monterey County Weekly and Alibi Weekly sufficient and appropriate to have removed the citation needed template from the intro/summary? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Is Discogs really considered an unreliable source? By Wikipedia or just by you? Discogs is the best resource for information on published music that I am aware of. Why do you consider Discogs unreliable? Can you point me to Wikipedia guidelines indicating that Discogs is an unreliable source? That would be astonishing news to me and, in my opinion, just wrong. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently Discogs is considered, by Wikipedia, an unreliable source as it is user generated content - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources I suppose the same principle applies to Wikipedia itself so Wikipedia is an unreliable source as well. Seems weird. But, Allmusic is considered a reliable source so we can just replace citations referencing Discogs with citations referencing Allmusic. Is that acceptable? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The Allmusic link indicating Rob Brezsny was the singer and songwriter in the band World Entertainment War is at https://www.allmusic.com/album/world-entertainment-war-mw0000264051 Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY. Not everything a notable person does is noteworthy. Secondary sources prove noteworthiness. Primary sources are merely a record of facts. An article that accumulates content based on Amazon links, blurbs, and online databases quickly becomes little more than puffery. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of puffery

User:Drmies asserts that the phrase "Brezsny is a well-known horoscope columnist, author, and singer/songwriter ..." is puffery. I assume it is the use of "well-known" that is perceived as puffery. Should we remove "well-known" or is it in fact true and verifiable that Brezsny is well-known and that is not, in fact, puffery? Are there other instances of perceived puffery in the article we should also consider revising? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Well-known" isn't always puffery--it's not puffery when verified by secondary sources. Here, we have at best five reliable sources for the entire article. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography articles

User:Drmies deleted the subsection on "Articles" in the Bibliography without bothering to discuss it here first. In the edit comment he states "i'm fine with edit-warring over this: this is just promotion. we don't link articles unless they are provably special, and a bunch of these are just websites", apparently preferring to propose an edit war rather than discuss on the talk page first. It may in fact be the case that the Articles subsection of the Bibliography section needed to be modified, deleted, or moved to an "External Links" section. What is the policy on bibliographical information on authors with respect to published online articles? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Briefly looking at the article links removed in that section it appears several are no longer active and others recently added look inappropriate. Let's leave that subsection removed until appropriate article links can be proposed. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Stick with Wikipedia convention, please. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Which Wikipedia convention(s) do you perceive I am violating? I am unable to readily see how your response relates to the subject under discussion in this section. Perhaps you are referring to something other than my expressed surprise at your proposal of an edit war rather than discussion? Or my suggestion that there may be appropriate article links proposed in the future? Or, is that just encouragement that when/if we add back any article links that we stick with Wikipedia convention? Please clarify. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Undisclosed payments template

User:Drmies added several multiple issues templates including the Undisclosed payments template which states that "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." What evidence or indication is there to believe that this article is being edited in return for undisclosed payments? Isn't the addition of this template, without conferring on the talk page first and without any evidence or indication that this may be the case, isn't that very addition in that manner a violation of the assumption of good faith? Do you have any evidence that would lead one to believe this is the case? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This topic appears to be of great concern to you. I don't know how Drmies feels about it, but many editors would regard all the pings above as harassment—the issue may not be as important for other editors as it appears to be for you. If you have any suggestions for how Wikipedia should be defended against spam and promotion, please make them at WP:Village pump (proposals) or on the talk page of any particular template that is of concern. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Anything could be perceived as harassment but the fact remains that there's nothing wrong about asking an editor to explain the purpose of their dubious tagging; it is doubly so if the editor's an admin. Incidentally, many editors would regard the tag bombing that occurred as harassment. 78.28.54.8 (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Johnuniq, for joining the discussion here and thank you for helping to improve this article. I do hope my comments here are not perceived as harassment, they are not intended as such. My main intent is to improve the article through a collaborative editing effort. It has been my experience on Wikipedia that adhering to the philosophy of "assumption of good faith" facilitates collaboration. Let's try to return to a state where that assumption is in place. I'm not trying to harass, I am asking for an explanation of the Undisclosed payments tag so that we can address the concern. Hopefully that explanation is forthcoming and we can resolve the issue. And, yes, this topic is of concern to me. Shouldn't it be of concern to all editors of this article since the implication is that one or more of us is ethically compromised. I would like to clear it up as soon as possible. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss changes first

User:Yunshui made significant changes earlier today to the article without joining the proposed changes discussion here. Please, let's collaborate on improving this article and discuss proposed changes here. I have not yet reviewed these most recent changes but my previous experience editing has lead me to believe that a collaborative effort produces the best results. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge any of the amendments I made, please feel free. I was not aware that the removal of content that blatantly violated Wikipedia's neutrality, content and formatting policies was so likely to be contested, but I'm happy to defend any of my changes. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Umm......For the sake of curiosity, which of our notability guidelines, does the subject pass? ∯WBG^converse 04:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Doctorfree: No one is required to run their edits by you. We encourage bold editing as a matter of policy, and while you're free to dispute specific changes, this declaration is getting dangerously close to ownership behavior, which is against policy. You do not need to lecture administrators about the collaborative nature of the project, especially after disrupting the article with an edit war. These people know what they're doing, so listen to them. I'll be honest with you: you're currently on thin ice because it appears that you've been fighting the removal of poorly-sourced and/or promotional content, and that you have some sort of COI (even if the paid editing suspicion is wrong). I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that is what we're seeing, and that is how you're going to be treated unless you change your approach, quickly. If you're genuinely interested in collaboration, and you truly want to deescalate the situation and help improve the article, move on. Focus strictly on content, not contributors, abide by consensus, and work with the people already involved to figure out how to move the article forward, so that the outstanding maintenance templates can be resolved. Swarm ♠ 08:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not ask or require or intend for everybody to run their edits by me first. I kindly asked, with 'Please' to discuss changes here on the talk page. This article got tag bombed and a couple of reverts happened while we were actively discussing how to improve it here. I have not been "fighting the removal of poorly-sourced and/or promotional content" as you suggest. Can you provide me with any comment or modification I have made that would support that contention? I reverted the article to the best most recent starting point I could find upon which to base the improvements we are seeing in recent edits. I am openly discussing my and other editors concerns here on the talk page. It's discouraging to see the adversarial behavior in so many editors. I believe this will be the downfall of Wikipedia. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns

discogs and allmusic (both usergenerated content) are still used to source a substantial part of the BLP. But let's examine the other sources

• Monterey County Weekly. Can't access that (451: Unavailable due to legal reasons), so no opinion there.
• alibi.com, an op-ed with the punchline "In other words, don’t look for a rational explanation of astrology."
• "Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia", a publication by the subject of the article
• Mining an Oracle "And thus begins a mind-altering, interview-transcending, extremely entertaining encounter with Rob Brezsny."
• Grave encouter" (same publication), "In which we bury a symbol of paranoia in an effort to break on through to the other side with astrologer Rob Brezsny"

None of these strike me as particularly reliable for a BLP, especially since Rob Brezsny is a featured astrologist in metroactive.com. @Dweller: Please explain why you think these sources are reliable enough for a BLP. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a bunch of over-thinking. If you believe the article should be deleted, take it to AfD. Otherwise, the refs are entirely adequate for the uncontroversial information they verify. You're not seriously suggesting the "Pronoia" ref should be removed when it merely is used to provide the publishing details for a title mentioned? Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

At least they don't seem to establish notability, so that would be the next step. Still have to do BEFORE, though. Kleuske (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)I a

I agree with Johnuniq. If you think that notability isn't established, take it to AfD. Otherwise, you're being excessive by restoring those tags. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Making use of this pre-existing section rather than making my own. User talk:Inspiratrix has a long list of sources; a sampling suggests to me that a large number at least in the sections on the astrology column and one or more of the books are usable. (@Inspiratrix: I'm sorry, I'm not so sure about the music, though it's mentioned in some of the sources I sampled.) The article is now at AfD; I've linked to the list there, and would be willing to attempt a rewrite, but it'smy understanding that there's been quite a lot of editing around recently, so maybe someone else who's already edited it would be better placed. In any case I'm embarrassed to say that I am determined to write a new article first; I've had so many interruptions preventing me from getting to it, I'm going nuts and the interlibrary loan books are burning holes in the carpet. But consider this a pledge to sharpen my pencil here after that—Tuesday or before—if no one else has it in hand by then. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• This article has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Brezsny to read the discussion and vote. The user opening the nomination seems to believe there are insufficient reliable, independent and secondary sources to warrant notability. The best way to address this concern is to improve the existing sources/citations and supplant these with additional reliable, independent and secondary sources. Of course, one might argue that 40+years of continuous publication in dozens of journals around the country, publication of several books, authorship of songs recorded by Jefferson Starship, and the publication of the first and only book on the subject of Pronoia might be self-evident proof of notability - it's still going to need reliable, independent, and secondary sourcing. AfD discussion should go in the link above. Here we can discuss ways to improve the article to address concerns. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• User:Dweller opens the discussion here by pointing out that "discogs and allmusic (both usergenerated content) are still used to source a substantial part of the BLP". The Discogs citation is under current discussion above and I have previously suggested we replace any Discogs citations with equivalent citations to AllMusic (see discussion above in Talk:Rob_Brezsny#Proposed_revisions. Further, AllMusic is "considered reliable for use in music-related topic on Wikipedia" according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#General. This article has come under heavy attack - first it was tag bombed, then it was mangled, now it is up for AfD. My approach is to distill the concern, often aired in a belligerent adversarial tone, and try to address it as best we can in a collaborative effort. Please join me in working together to improve rather than destroy this article. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, that was me. Kleuske (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know what I was looking at, my bad. Do you agree that AllMusic is considered a reliable source? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Books on pronoia

Is Brezsny's book "Pronoia is the Antidote for Paranoia" the first and only book on the subject of pronoia? I cannot find another. Of course, it's difficult to prove uniqueness - all I can say thus far is that any other books on pronoia are well hidden from public view or anyway not easily discovered. If in fact Brezsny's title is the first and only book on pronoia this would add to any claim of notability. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? How should one best go about determining and framing this? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 21:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the relevance or intended point of directing me to WP:FRINGE ? I'm not sure if Pronoia (psychology) is a fringe theory or accepted in mainstream psychology but I don't see the relevance in this context. Are you saying that it is a fringe theory and, as such, a book on the subject would not qualify the author as notable even if the book is the first and only on the topic? Or, are you saying something else? Any clarification appreciated. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Brezsny is not a psychologist, and therefore anything he writes about pronoia is from a non-specialist's point of view. A book of self-help and pop psychology from a non-psychologist is not notable as "the first and only book on the subject of pronoia", and confers no particular notability on the author. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, the psychologist who first described "pronoia" was describing a condition of the mind, equivalent in its way to paranoia. Just as the Universe is not conspiring against you (paranoia), neither is it conspiring to "shower you with blessings" (pronoia). In point of fact, the Universe doesn't give a damn about you, or me, or anyone else, for that matter; the Universe just is. To attempt to craft a philosophy of life around pronoia -- a mental aberration -- is just about as WP:FRINGEy as it gets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

So it would be your assertion that the first published book on crop circles would not confer upon the author any notability. Similarly, the first published book on the existence of angels would not contribute to the author's notability. That is, notability is not just significance in terms of social or global impact but it must also be accompanied by content that is within the realm of the rational scientific view. Correct? If I misunderstand your view please correct me. If I do understand your view then I must say I most certainly do not agree with it nor do I believe the Wikipedia guidelines on notability are consistent with your view. Let's discuss further to make sure we understand each other and the guidelines. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) If the first published book on crop circles was written by a dental hygenist, or even a dentist, for that matter, then it would not confer notability on them, per se, unless recognized experts were to start citing it as authoritative. These days, anyone can write a book on anything and get it published or self-publish it. The existence of a published book means nothing, and is not noteworthy in itself. Now, if you'd like to cite some examples of professional psychologists citing Brezsny's book as an authoritative source on pronoia, then you'd have something.

As for angels, you're rather late to the table on that, people have been writing about angels for at least a millennium. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, notability in the Wikipedia sense refers to whether reliable sources have noted something. The first breakfast consisting of a banana would be notable if reliable sources noted it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a shocking difference of views on the Wikipedia notion of notability at least with regards authorship of books on fringe theory and possibly much wider. I agree with Johnuniq, notability is conferred by being noted not by the nature of the content of the published work. Take as an example the notability of Erich von Däniken, a Hotel manager who wrote a book titled Chariots of the Gods?. He had no professional expertise in the area, no credentials, nothing to qualify him, it may have even been plagiarized. But the book's popularity and widespread notice resulted in many many verifiable independent reliable secondary sources qualifying the author as notable. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no "shocking difference". Pretty much everyone here knows what notability it, although we may disagree on how it is interpreted in particular cases. You asked a question: Does writing a specific book confer notability on the author, and the answer is "No, it does not." That you refuse to accept that, and continue to argue against all other parties is a manifestation of your conflict of interest about this subject: you simply cannot approach the subject neutrally, and behave as an advocate for him and his work. Please do not edit the article directly any more, instead, make suggestions for changes on this page and other, neutral, editors will deal with them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Film career

The subject of the article wrote, produced, and contributed to the soundtrack of the film The Drivetime. I added that to the article but my edit was reverted by User:Beyond My Ken with the comment that the source was unreliable, I should find another source and post it here. The source I used was Vertical Pool ( http://www.verticalpool.com/drivetime.html ) There is an entry at IMDb that lists Brezsny as writer. I believe Wikipedia considers IMDb to be user generated content. If so then I doubt this will suffice. Does anyone have an acceptable source for this? Why is Vertical Pool considered unreliable? Also, Brezsny had a role in the 1994 movie Being Human (he played the TV Man-Psychic) but that also is difficult to source other than IMDb. Any help? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Try the AFI catalog or TCM.com. And please, do not edit the article directly, due to your obvious COI, just post the material you find here and someone will take care of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide us with some evidence or explanation of why you believe I have a conflict of interest with regards this article? Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The Drivetime is an independent film. AFI and Turner don't care about those but I will search there - thanks for the suggestions. Does anyone have any suggestion for where to search for reliable sources for independent film credits? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is another possible source for Brezsny's involvement in The Drivetime - http://reason.com/archives/1996/11/01/independents-day in Is this source considered reliable - an article and review of independent films on Reason.com the online edition of a monthly print magazine that is an editorially independent publication of the Reason Foundation, a national, non-profit research and educational organization. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This source, from the Director of The Drivetime, provides greater detail on the credits for the movie. Is this source considered reliable? http://www.paratheatrical.com/pages/videofilms/drivetime/tech.html Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The writer of the Reason article was involved in making the film. Your second source is a primary source -- the director -- and its "Main Page" link goes right back to the Vertical Pool page. Please find an independent source of information, these don't qualify. There are plenty of reliable sources that cover independent films and are not connected with the making or promoting of this particular film. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Man, that was some good research figuring out that the author of the Reason article was in the film. He only has a bit part and isn't listed in the credits I found. Too bad, I thought the Reason would qualify as a good independent reliable 3rd party source. Oh well, maybe the BAMPFA source will. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is another possible independent source for Brezsny's involvement in The Drivetime. This one is from the UC Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive - http://archive.bampfa.berkeley.edu/film/FN13178 Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I propose adding a one line description of Brezsny's film career. I believe I've found an independent reliable verifiable source at the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive. I know there has been a lot of disagreement lately over what is considered a reliable source and the exact phrasing of article content supported by a citation so I want to run this change by folks here on the talk page to get some initial consensus. What do people think of a change like the following:

Brezsny contributed to the writing and soundtrack of the science fiction film ''[[The Drivetime]]''.<ref>{{cite web
 | url=http://archive.bampfa.berkeley.edu/film/FN13178
 | title=Film Programs - Size Matters Part Ii: Feature-Length Experimental Video, ''The Drivetime'' Antero Alli w/ Rob Brezsny U.S., 1995

 | publisher=[[Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive]]
 | accessdate=2018-07-22}}</ref>

Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The source seems appropriate and reliable. I would make the entry:

Brezsny contributed to the writing and soundtrack of the 1995 [[science fiction film|science fiction]] [[independent film]] ''[[The Drivetime]]''.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://archive.bampfa.berkeley.edu/film/FN13178| title=Film Programs: Size Matters Part Ii: Feature-Length Experimental Video: The Drivetime| last=Seid | first=Steve |date=ndg | publisher=[[Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive]] | accessdate=July 22, 2018}}</ref>

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Added as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources

User:JzG, an editor with a great deal more experience than I, deleted the citation to the Alibi Weekly with the comment that it is not WP:RS. That is, he believes the Alibi Weekly is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Guy, can you explain to us how you make that determination? I added the citation and, to my view, the Alibi Weekly qualifies as a reliable source. It is a local Albuquerque, New Mexico weekly news and entertainment newspaper, the web site being the online version of the print version. The Alibi Weekly is a member of both the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies and the National Newspaper Association. More info on the publication, staff, etc at https://alibi.com/index.php?scn=contacts Ronald Joe Record (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would actually read WP:RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I read it. Can you assist me in understanding specifically how that disqualifies the Weekly Alibi? If you do not wish to help with my understanding that is understandable - just ignore me but please refrain from denigrating insulting remarks about me. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't assist you if I don't know what it is you actually know. What is your understanding of what a reliable source is? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Published 3rd party sources preferably with a fact checking policy. I think context is important and there is a hierarchy of reliability starting with peer reviewed scientific papers, textbooks, books published by reputable publishing houses, magazines, journals, newspapers. In this particular case my understanding is that the publication of a news organizations whose reporting is fact checked and from well established outlets would qualify as reliable by Wikipedia standards. I'm sure my understanding can be improved but my question is really what about the Weekly Alibi would lead one to believe it is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? It seems like it is, at least in its news reporting sections. It's ok if you don't want to spend time helping me - I see you view my discussion contribution here as "bludgeoning" and not in the vein I intend it. However, if you do want to help me understand why the Weekly Alibi is not a reliable source I would appreciate it. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have reason to beli3eve that an "alternative weekly" such as the Weekly Alibi has a reputation for fact-checking? Membership in trade associations means nothing in that regard. Have they been the recipient of any local or regional awards for news reporting? Have their news pieces prompted follow-up stories by mainstream news organizations? Certain periodicals of that type do have such a reputation, and are considered to be reliable sources, but what may be true about the Village Voice or L.A. Weekly or the Chicago Reader isn't necessarily true about all alternative weeklies.

We don't start with the proposition that a source is reliable unless proven otherwise, when there's essentially no information on the quality of a given source, we assume that it's unreliable until proven that it is. So: what is your evidence that the Weekly Alibi -- which appears to be primarily a newspaper of event listings and reviews -- qualifies as a reliable source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reliability has to be evaluated in context and on a case by case basis. That's why I was asking Guy what he used in his determination that The Alibi is not a reliable source. It does, in fact, have a very good reputation in New Mexico - it's the second highest circulation of any newspaper in New Mexico, staff from the Alibi have moderated Albuquerque mayoral debates ( http://nmpoliticalreport.com/tag/weekly-alibi/ ), the newspaper is quite active in New Mexico politics, candidates for local and state offices pursue endorsements by The Alibi, yes they have arts and entertainment sections but they also have a robust news section, and they have been publishing for over a quarter century. It seems like it meets the criteria or anyway pretty close which is why I wanted to know why Guy didn't think so. Thanks for your explanation, perhaps Guy used the same reasoning - unreliable unless one can provide evidence that it does qualify. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And that's why I'm asking you why you think it's reliable. But you don't really have to answer that, I know, and everyone here who's been reading your interminable questions knows the reason: you think it's reliable because if it's reliable you can use it in the article. You've got it all bass-ackwards, and I'm tired of talking to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I am just trying to understand the policy and improve my ability to determine reliable sources. This particular source is not even required by the article, there is another source which is used in a citation for the same content. It is, however, an instructive borderline case and yes, it would be preferable to add it back into the article. I do believe The Alibi should be considered a reliable source and tried to provide you with some of the evidence as to why. You got me digging for citations for my citations! Please do not respond if you are tired of talking to me. There is no need. But if you do continue to respond please refrain from characterizing my motives in such negative ways. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I am trying to improve this article with better sources, I added reliable citations (some included quotes, showing how the support the statement on WP) and they are reverted quickly without any discussion or acknowledgement. The agressive policing of citations is uncivil editing behavior and does not follow Wikipedia:Etiquette. Please assume good faith and use the talk page, if you are confused or feel the need to have more information. These are the deleted links, [3], [4] Jooojay (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement for discussion before reverting bad edits. You just can't throw any old thing into an article, the reference needs to actually support the statement made. In this case, neither reference supported the statements they were added to support. Unfortunately one of my edit summaries was truncated, but the other said clearly why the edit was being reverted.

The article from the Times does indeed have a quote from Berzsny -- "Astrology is a poetic language of the soul, not a scientific method," he said, likening it to "a Neruda poem, Kandinsky paintings or a Nick Cave song." -- but it does not say that it comes from his column - it says it came from an e-mail, so it does not support the contention that "he uses a more literary approach than conventional horoscopes use".

The next edit added this statement to the article "His astrology writings generally avoid absolute predictions," but the source cited does not say anything about Brezsny's writing "in general", it quotes what he says about what might possibly happen in a particular eclipse to a particular person, Donald Trump. The article reads:

No one, of course, knows what will happen to Herr Trump during the eclipse, but Rob Brezsny, author of The Stranger's Free Will Astrology column, said there could be a death of some sort—though not, unfortunately, a literal one.

"I don't like to make absolute predictions, but this could result in an ego death," Brezsny told me. "In a normal person, that could be a good thing, because it would relieve that person of illusions and delusions that he has about himself. But in Trump's case, there could be a shattering." The kind of man who reads a folder of positive reviews about himself twice a day doesn't seem all that susceptible to an ego shattering, but, Brezsny added, "anyone else who is ridiculed as much as Trump is would probably have gone insane by now. The eclipse may portend a climax to the humiliation."

While Brezsny's use of psychobabble in his statement is instructive, the source in no respect supports the added statement "His astrology writings generally avoid absolute predictions".

Both reverts were justified. If more junk gets added to this article, it will be just as quickly removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning, it states in the NY Times article his approach to astrology and how it is different. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing process, this Wikiquette isn't about a "requirement" to editing, this is about communicating your intention clearly and with respect. Your revert edit history literally makes no sense in the English language. Using terms like "psychobabble" are not neutral language, and in the context of poetry and art, this term is offensive. Please don't use threats, to describe how you intent to revert in the future. Again, none of this is appropriate and goes against wikiquette. Jooojay (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, then, let me "communicate" clearly to you my intentions: if you, or anyone else, makes similar edits to this article, adding references which do not support the statements made, I will revert them, without asking in advance for your permission to do so - and I don't really care how much you bend yourself into a pretzel afterwards attempting to justify them. If a statement in the article say "X", then the reference had better say "X", - and exactly "X", not "X-prime", "X-like", or your own personal interpretation of what "X" means. If the article says "Brezsny uses a more literary style than most other horoscope writers", then the source had better say something like "Brezsny's literary style is unique among horoscope columnists."

The statements in this article are going to be verifiable and the sources are gong to be reliable - no sneaking in The New York Times to gussy up the reference list. If you have objections to that, take it up on WT:V and WT:RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and you can complain about my calling Brezsny's bullshit about an eclipse causing an "ego-death" "psychobabble" the day that I add "psychobabble" to the article, until then, I stand by what I said, in spades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Remove remaining template tags

Now that there are quite a few citations for this fairly brief biography, can we remove the needed sources tag? And, so far as I can tell, the only remaining ref not considered reliable by Wikipedia is the citation of Discogs, THE most reliable source for music discography on the planet, ever. Any collector will tell you Discogs is far superior to AllMusic or any other online or print resource when cataloging music. Discogs even has the matrix numbers for vinyl. Try finding that on AllMusic. I get it that Wikipedia considers blogs and other user generated content as unreliable but Discogs is crowd sourced and pretty much self correcting. Much better than AllMusic and AllMusic is considered reliable. So, I cannot bring myself to delete a Discogs ref, that will have to be one of you. When that is gone though, we can remove the other tag, the unreliable sources template. Right? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed Discogs as source: crowd sourcing is only "self correcting" when there is a lot of input and there are no biasing factors, which is not at all clear in this instance. I re-wrote the information so that it is supported by the Good Times article. I also removed the clean-up tags, as I believe that all statements are now supported by reliable sources - editors who disagree are free to re-add the tags if they wish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Article sections and tone

The article has seen an editorial flurry (over 75 edits) in the last 2 weeks after minimal editing for nearly 4 years. Sections have been removed and now all but the introductory summary is stuffed into the single "Career" section. The Career section consists of brief summaries of several distinct careers - musical, writing, astrology columnist, film. There are several random out of context quotes thrown in, and some editorial reviews. I suggest separate sections on Career, Critical reception, and Quotes with the Career section possibly split into subsections if enough material can be included to warrant this. In addition, when including a quote it is good writing habit to provide any needed context. For instance, the quote on genocide of the imagination only provides the reader with the last line of a quote from the Times - unless the reader also visits the reference to get the full quote they probably would not understand. It should be:

So much of what happens in your life is stimulated by what you think is going to happen. I want readers to use their imagination to cook up new responses to the events in their lives. I'm on a mission to save people from the genocide of the imagination.

Finally, the article has swung from pro-Brezsny to predominantly anti-Brezsny, neither of which is what we want. Let's aim for an objective representation, including well sourced critical review of both a positive and negative nature. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you point out exactly why you think the article has an "anti-Brezsney" tone to it? I just read through the article and it read neutral to me, so I don't understand the source of this concern. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The article's inclusion of editorial reviews is appropriate as the subject's writings are widely distributed and account for some notability. However, the selection of which reviews to include seems, to me, biased toward the negative. Examples of this would include referring to his writing as "glib, hectoring, oblique" and "silly". There are many reviews of a positive nature that could also be included, perhaps some balance can be arrived at. Further, the cherry picking of quotes seems biased. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is what the Utne Reader has in the way of critical review of Brezsny's astrology column:

With a blend of spontaneous poetry, feisty politics, and fanciful put-on, Brezsny breathes new life into the tabloid mummy of zodiac advice columns.

This source is cited in the article but the review omitted. Including negative reviews and omitting positive reviews would, in my opinion, indicate either bias or ignorance. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Your definition of "anti-Brezsny" appears to be "not pro-Brezsny". I will agree with you that the article is no longer "pro-Brezsny -- which it was when you were the primary editor -- and that's because we don't roll that way, we write articles that, hopefully, present facts as reported by reliable sources, and the reader is free to draw their own conclusions from the facts.

What you do not seem to be able to understand is we're not a promotional outlet, or a place for fanboys to vent their enthusiasms, nor do we run blurbs, the way you did on the AfD discussion [5]:

• "Brilliant! Absorbing! Wildly useful! Rob Brezsny gets my nomination for best prophet in a starring role. He's a script doctor for the soul." - Marisa Tomei, Academy Award-winning actress
• "A book so weird it just might drive you stark raving sane." - Robert Anton Wilson
• “I’ve seen the future of American literature and its name is Rob Brezsny.” - novelist Tom Robbins
• “Brezsny holds his own place next to cultural shamans like Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary, William Burroughs, and Ken Kesey.” - Popmatters.com
• “The prose is poetic, circular, dancing, combining the narrative voices of Anais Nin, Tom Robbins, and David Ignatow.” - Rain Taxi
• “Rob Brezsny is contemporary literature’s Sage Against the Machine.” - Good Times, Santa Cruz, CA
• “What Rob Brezsny does with words is grammarye, the Old English term for magic. With his strange brew of macho feminism and poetic rationalism, Brezsny weaves a yarn crazy enough to be true and real enough to subvert the literalist virus of cynicism now immobilizing the collective mindscape.” - Antero Alli, author of Astrologik, Angel Tech, and The Vertical Oracle
• “Millions of people already live their lives in accordance with Rob Brezsny’s ‘Free Will Astrology’ prophecies. But the time has come for a deeper dose of Brezsny’s brain. Enter this temple if you dare!” - David Ulansey, author of The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries

That, I think, is what you want the article to be like, and you're just not going to get it.

In regard to "reviews", you're lucky that I stopped myself from removing the Utne Reader entirely. Other editors may come to a different conclusion about its status as a reliable source, but I thought it was reliable enough to take basic facts from, and pretty much not anything else. I can guarantee to you who would win in a battle for reliability, notability, and respectablity between the Utne Reader and The New York Times.

The article, as it stands, is completely neutral. It carries exactly one editorial opinion, from the Times, and that one is not particularly negative. {If we present editorial opinions, it's from the best, most reliable, most notable sources, not from alternative weeklies, which are pretty much focused on catering to the prejudices of their audience.) The rest of the article, aside from bare facts, is Brezsny's own words about himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors can determine the kind of article preferred by Doctorfree ("Ronald Joe Record") by looking at this version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Added a short quote from Utne Reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You know, we can always strip it down to bare facts:

Brezsny uses first-person narrative in his horoscope columns, as well as a more literary approach than conventional horoscopes use.[3] 

In the 1970s and 1980s, Brezsny was a singer and songwriter for local Santa Cruz, California bands and then, in the early 1990s, for the band World Entertainment War,[6] for whom Brezsny wrote the song "Dark Ages", which was later recorded by Jefferson Starship for their 1995 album Deep Space / Virgin Sky.[7][8] Jefferson Starship also recorded the World Entertainment War song "In A Crisis" on their 2008 album Jefferson's Tree of Liberty.[9]

Brezsny contributed to the writing and soundtrack of the 1995 science fiction independent film The Drivetime.[10]

Brezsny is author of the books Images Are Dangerous (1985);[11] The Televisionary Oracle (2000),[12] a novel;[13] and a self-help book,[14] Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia: How the Whole World Is Conspiring To Shower You with Blessings (2005, rev.2009), which derives its name from the concept of pronoia.[15][16] 

if that's what you prefer. Perhaps other editors would like to weigh in on whether this version is preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not make this about me. User:Beyond My Ken has a hair up his ass about me. I don't know why. He has implied I accepted undisclosed payments for editing this page, he has referred to my comments as bludgeoning and misrepresented my talk page entries saying that I questioned every edit made here! He asserts that I insist on adding sources that a child would know are unreliable. He stated that I have a fawning attitude towards the subject of this article and asserts that I am incapable of editing neutrally. So, I am sick and tired of the abuse and bullying. I am not arguing for the inclusion of book jacket blurbs, nobody is. Those blurbs were submitted in a discussion of the subject's notability and were never submitted, by me, for inclusion in the article itself. The article contains a review. The review is negative in the extreme. I submitted a positive review from a reputable and certainly reliable publication, the Utne Reader, for consideration. For that I get attacked. Just forget about me. Look at the quote, the source, the article, and try to be objective about providing a balanced neutral view. I do not believe Beyond My Ken is neutral in this regard although he has made some good edits/ Ronald Joe Record (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Beyond My Ken made the change I suggested and added the Utne Reader review. Why didn't his reply on this thread simply say "Good idea. Done." rather than all the stuff about how I want to turn the article into a promotional piece? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "make it about you" you made it about you by editing the article the way you did and attempting to dominate the editing of the article by WP:BLUDGEONing the talk page, and you continue to keep it about you by refusing to accept Wikipedia's principles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha, BMK--apparently you have a hair "up your ass" about this editor, so it really is about him you know. I hadn't heard that expression before, BTW, and it's really kind of gross, so thank you for taking up this mess on behalf of Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You guys are hilarious! Ok, if you insist, let’s keep it about me. Maybe move it to my talk page, most serious editors are likely disinterested and would prefer to focus this talk page on the article. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump prediction

I removed the Trump prediction from the article per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. This may have been slightly interesting 4 years ago, but it has no enduring significance. It feels like a random and irrelevant digression in an otherwise to-the-point bio. My edit, however, was reverted. I still stand by the opinion that it doesn't belong in the article, however. Brezsny expresses opinions about celebrities on a daily basis. Why is this one important enough to devote 18% of his biography to? Kaldari (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it received press attention, and because Trump is not just of the past, he's still in the present and (possibly) our future. Further, Brezsny's comment is a reflection on his way of thinking, which is not given due attention in the article otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A quote in a single article in a local newspaper is hardly "press attention". And as far as reflecting Brezsny's way of thinking, it actually doesn't, as Brezsny doesn't believe in predicting the future:

I predict the present. I don't believe in predicting the future.[6]

Some people believe unquestioningly in the truth and power of astrology. They imagine it's an exact science that can unfailingly discern character and predict the future. Other people believe all astrology is nonsense. They think that everyone who uses it is deluded or stupid. I say that both of these groups are wrong. Both have a simplistic, uninformed perspective. The more correct view is that some astrology is nonsense and some is a potent psychological tool.[7]

He's clearly willing to make an exception, however, in order to get a dig in at Trump. Kaldari (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kaldari: There is no consensus in this discussion to remove the material. You are the only one who has written in favor of deleting it. Until there is a consensus, the article remains in the status quo ante. Editing disputed material without a consensus to do so is WP:Disruptive editing, and can lead to your being blocked. Please do not remove the material again without a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Good morning. I am Springnuts, a formerly uninvolved editor. Fwiw I have not previously edited this article, nor have I (afik) interacted with either of the editors involved. What follows is my opinion – no more and no less. You are welcome to like or dislike it; and to agree or disagree. If it does not help to resolve the disagreement then you might try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. User:Kaldari, who as far as I can see has not previously edited this article, removed some material, citing WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS in a detailed edit summary. This sort of summary is most helpful. 20 minutes later User:Beyond My Ken, who has had significant interaction with this article over the years reverted the edit, with the somewhat obscure edit summary “If a person wishes to mke (sic) an idiot of themselves in public, who are we to stop them”. See WP:REVEXP and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I find this sort of summary unhelpful: it did not address the justifications given by User:Kaldari, and the hostile tone of the wording, together with the speed of the revert, and the fact that User:Beyond My Ken themselves inserted the material we are concerned with [[8]] suggests (to me at any rate) a “knee-jerk” reaction. It is easy, but unhelpful, to feel proprietorial about articles we have spent time editing. iaw “Bold Revert Discuss, User:Beyond My Ken might have taken the issue to the talk page and engaged with the WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS questions. They did not, but a few hours later User:Kaldari did. This is the correct place to discuss whether the material is or is not noteworthy. User:Beyond My Ken replied on the talk page, but with only brief engagement with the issues raised. Imo • “Because it received press attention” concedes the WP:NOTNEWS point. • “Because Trump is not just of the past, he's still in the present and (possibly) our future” seems to add little. • “Brezsny's comment is a reflection on his way of thinking, which is not given due attention in the article otherwise” does attempt to engage with WP:UNDUE, but only by moving the notability noteworthiness goalposts to say that the prediction is not noteworthy in itself, but only as evidence of Brezsny's “way of thinking”. But this is not how it is used in the article; so imo it falls into WP:INDISCRIMINATE, since “to provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources”. User:Kaldari responded to the points raised. The points made seem, imo, to be reasonable. At this point User:Beyond My Ken stopped engaging in the discussion. Almost a fortnight later User:Kaldari again removed the material, with the useful edit summary reading: “Removing quote about Trump per Talk page. If you still disagree feel free to revert and discuss further.” This is clearly not inappropriate editing, because of the clear invitation to revert and discuss. A few hours later User:Beyond My Ken reverted with the helpful (and I think accurate) summary “no consensus for this edit”. Back on the talk page User:Beyond My Ken still did not engage with the issues, but made what comes across as (though was perhaps not meant as) an aggressive comment designed to block the issue and threaten the other editor: There is no consensus in this discussion to remove the material. You are the only one who has written in favor of deleting it. Until there is a consensus, the article remains in the status quo ante. Editing disputed material without a consensus to do so is WP:Disruptive editing, and can lead to your being blocked. Please do not remove the material again without a consensus. User:Kaldari thence took the issue to WP:3O; [[9]] an entirely appropriate move. Please note that it is recommended that the filing editor notifies the second editor about the request. In my opinion the material is inappropriate as WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. @User:Beyond My Ken, I do encourage you to edit in a considered and civil way. With all good wishes and respect to both editors, Springnuts (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Subject's factuality concern

I spoke with the subject of this article, and he feels that his proposed corrections were rejected by editors of the page. Do firsthand corrections not merit inclusion? Cjcollier (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There haven't been substantive edits to this article in about two years, so it isn't clear what his "proposed corrections" were. In any case, "firsthand corrections" generally shouldn't merit inclusion on their own because Wikipedia generally follows what independent, reliable sources say, not what article subjects report about themselves. Therefore, he shouldn't be editing the article himself but is welcome to suggest changes here on the talk page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)