Jump to content

Talk:Graeme Frost

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reliable sources

[edit]

A big portion of this article seems to be cited to things that I wouldn't characterize as mainstream, reliable sources (freerepublic.com, thinkprogress.org). Only the first reference, to the Baltimore Sun, qualifies, but with just that it's not much of an article. Are there other reliable sources we can use to flesh out the article, or should it instead be merged into somewhere like SCHIP#Current_bill describing the controversy over SCHIP more generally? --Delirium 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is ThinkProgress not a mainstream, reliable source? According to the wiki, it is a non partisan organization, founded by very respectable academics, politicians, and their aides. It has a budget about the size of the CATO Institute. The editor of the Think Progress blog has the following bio:
Faiz Shakir is the Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor of ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report. He holds a B.A. degree in Government from Harvard University and a J.D. degree from the Georgetown Law Center. Faiz has previously worked as a Research Associate for the Democratic National Committee, as a Legislative Aide to Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and as a communications aide in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. His writings have appeared in the Jerusalem Post, Florida Today, and Salon. Faiz has appeared on CNN, Fox News, and CNBC television, among other places, and has been a guest on many radio shows.
I don't see why ThinkProgress is considered anything other than a mainstream, reliable source.

71.39.78.68 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can include ThinkProgress citations to a degree but should attribute properly with POV taken into account. Much of what they have written can be sourced to other less overtly partisan sources such as the NYT, TIME, and even The New Republic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe ThinkProgress is partisan, you should alert the IRS. My understanding is they are classified as a non-partisan organization. What measure do you use to determine they are partisan? ALSO, how WOULD you cite them? Please give an example, I will almost certainly use it in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.16 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delirium, the FreeRepublic post is part of the story. We should source its usage by Limbaugh (NYT story mentioned it, for example) as well as the RedState comment. Linking to comments on forums which have notability established and introduced through an independent source is permissible when they are the subject of an assertion rather than the source of an assertion. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

There is definitely a controversy surrounding Frost's speech and bio. We need to have a NPOV article without claiming web sources to be left, right or whatever. It's true that we have WP:RS guidelines, but nowhere it gives a list of RS, so before deleting (as opposed to editing) anything please discuss what you are doing on this talk page. Thank you. Mhym 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I TAKE EXTREME EXCEPTION TO MYHM'S POV REVERTS OF MY EDITS

[edit]

I made two or three edits this morning. Each edit had citations including a citation from ABC News. I added a discussion section to the discussion page explaining why one source, Think Progress, should be considered as reliable a source as the CATO institute, since TP is a non-partisan organization, founded by respectable academics and politicians, and has a budget the size of CATO.

In response, MYHM reverted my edits,

MYHM, the first rule of wikipedia is to edit, expand and clarify other people's edits. In the early phase of an article it is likely that edits need other editing.

BULK REVERSION is a POV attempt to control the information posted. It is does not conform to Assume Good Faith. It is a blatant BAD faith effort.

In my edit, I cited ThinkProgress. I think TP is a fine and respectable organization. BUT. If you do not, the citation I linked to provided the additional links to so called mainstream respectable news media for each and every point. A fine way to improve my edit would have been for you, MYHM, to include those citations. But to just revert the entire edit with a bogus claim that it was too NPOV without discussing that is just bullshit.

Please do not revert this article again, without first a) trying to improve it, and b) discussing your issues on the talk page.

It's especially hypocritical for you to issue a blanket reversion without discussion before even a day has gone by since you yourself had written this: o before deleting (as opposed to editing) anything please discuss what you are doing on this talk page. Thank you. Mhym 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 71.39.78.68 18:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.39.78.68, please remain civil when discussing edits and avoid personal attacks. Much of the wording that you introduced was heavily biased, even if the sources are acceptable. (I don't see why ThinkProgress can't be a source, but its POV should be made clear during attribution.) Reverting poorly worded or sourced edits is not always the best choice, but it is not wrong to do so. Edit wars, however, are considered "harmful" to editorial comity. In any case, if you respond to your material being edited with hostile screeds, it will be difficult for other editors to be ready to work with you in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't respond with hostile screeds to my material being edited. I respond with anger towards people that issue blanket reversions. A bulk reversion is not an edit. A bulk reversion is an erasure. A POV attack. And that it came from a user who had within 24 hours prior asked others to edit and not revert, it is extremely suspect. If you think the working was heavily biased, EDIT it. DISCUSS it. IMPROVE it. I for one fail to see how ANY of the wording was heavily biased. I do concede it was clumsy english, and I prefer the next edit to it, the one that improved it that left its points substantially in place.
If you don't understand why bulk reversions are a bullshit POV attack and contra wiki, go see slashdot, and FARK, and Time UK this very day in which many people describe why they no longer contribute to the wikipedia. The short answer is that there are way too many bulk reversions and way too few refining edits.
I must insist that you stay on topic for this article and remain civil. Even a blanket reversion is not justification for incivility. If you can moderate your behavior and listen to other editors you are much less likely to face these blanket reversions. --Dhartung | Talk 14:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That justification for reversions is strictly ad hominem. And no editor is in any position to "insist" anything of other editors. -- 71.102.136.107 07:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any and all editors should always insist on maintaining civility, as that is Wikipedia policy. It is not optional. Those who see it as something to discard when convenient will quickly find otherwise; take a gander at WP:ANI, why don't you. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added back in 67.98.206.2 removal of ThinkProgress information

[edit]

ThinkProgress and the CAP as discussed above is a reputable source. They are registered as a non-partisan organization. They have a budget the size of CATOs. Why would you remove their claim to this email, when for example in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Controversy article, a similar claim to an email is left to stand?

Why is the Weekly Standard's blog more reputable than ThinkProgress? Why is ABC's blog more reputable than ThinkProgress?

I believe we can use common sense here and recognize that while ThinkProgress can be a source of certain facts, they exist to disseminate opinion, and that backing up assertions from a more mainstream source is something that makes the article stronger. This is about the topic of Graeme Frost, not about whether CAP gets credit. Please read WP:RS. --Dhartung | Talk 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "common sense" is simply your bias. -- 71.102.136.107 07:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to tell me what my bias is, O wise and all-knowing anon? My bias, as I see it, is in favor of stronger sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 03:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________ ___Thinkprogress is the complete opposite of a non-partisan org... If it were any farther left, it'd fall of the earth! It makes dailykos look like a right-wing blog... even it's title shows it's true nature. Think Progress?!? Since when do you know of any non-leftist who call themselves "progress"ives?! Just because TP (an accurate name for them) has a budget the size of CATOs means nothing.... Soros, et al has a budget the size of Europe, yet it doesn't make him any more reliable or non-partisan... and where are they registered as non-partisan?! The list of leftist sites that want to blind the public with propaganda?! This is exactly why Wikipedia is as reliable as a junkie. ///screamtoasigh/// —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.200.175 (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

[edit]

I removed the quote as I don't see much substance in it. Instead I added a one line summary which in my view is fair and neutral. Someone who think the quote is informative please explain why. Mhym 03:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is your edit anything other than worse? The alleged email seems to suggest the interest on behalf of GOP in the ongoing controversy. Your edit removes the primary source, the email itself, and substitutes it with a watered down description and your conclusion. Which treats the reader as a rational adult able to come to his own conclusions, showing the reader the actual email, or not showing the reader the actual email and substituting it with a watered down 2nd party description with your proffered conclusion? Showing the reader the email is not POV. Offering a conclusion with a weak description is in fact a POV edit. What are you saving by removing the email? Bytes on a disk? Bandwidth? What are you adding by substituting your edit? 130.76.64.16 05:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer is here: WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. In other words, if the quote does not contribute the new original info we should not have it. The alleged email (remember, NPOV - just because one source claims something true does not immediately make it so, thus alleged) has nothing new other than the criticism of Frost family mentioned in the article earlier. What is potentially interesting is that GOP official cares. I personally am not sure that's notable (Malkin or Time care even more - they wrote long article on the subject. So? Why should I care what they care about? I don't read nor respect either.) But that's a matter of opinion. If you think it follows WP:Notability, ok then. Someone will come to this page a month later who never heard of the story and be able to make an impartial judgment. Remember: all edits here are temporary. Mhym 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged email? Please visit the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page. On that page so called "alleged" emails are discussed left and right and no one removes them. In many ways, I agree with you and think that alleged emails are highly dubious. But that's not what you anyway, and you still haven't explained why a watered down description with your watered down conclusion is in any sense better than offering the actual alleged email. Blah blah blah not repository? Why not just remove the ENTIRE article and instead put in your watered down synopsis with a watered down conclusion of what YOU think people should feel about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added back in link to freerepublic post

[edit]

If TIME and everyone agrees the this controversy arose by the icwhatudo post at freerepublic, how is it not germane to link to THAT post at the free republic? 130.76.64.16 05:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, the post is germane but it must be properly introduced as a topic unto itself, not as a source. Since there is now a TIME magazine quote that performs that function, the link should not be a problem.--Dhartung | Talk 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about Graeme Frost, and should be renamed

[edit]

If I were this kid, or his parents, I would not want his a wikipedia article named about me that doesn't describe any of my other likes or dislikes.

I think this article should be renamed to something like:

Graeme Frost Controversy SCHIP Controversy Anatomy of a Smear Campaign, Teh Graeme Frost Smears

Seriously, this article is not a biography of Frost and should be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Are we going to make Wikipedia entries for every person that makes the news? This article should be used to expand the S-CHIP entry or used in a new article about the S-CHIP controversy.Euphgeek 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who created this article, I disagree. The notability of Graeme Frost is clear. The Google test which I normally use gives 1.4 mln hits, many of them in popular and reliable sources. The readers might want to know about the person, thus WP should have the article. Whether the current content of the article is relevant is a different question, which I think should be seriously discussed. I would suggest that the controversy surrounding Frost family is relevant, while the "controversy around the controversy" (see partisan politics section) is not. Hopefully someone with a NPOV will remove this section. Mhym 03:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we shouldn't provide any information on him, but the only information on the page has to do with the S-CHIP controversy. It's not a biography page, which is what one would expect on a page dedicated solely to one person. Another question you might ask yourself is, what relevance will this person have in five years? Or even one year? Euphgeek 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Mr. Frost. If you think it has extraneous info, be bold and remove it! As for the relevance you are not serious. What relevance will Kevin Federline have in five years? Remember, we report present and past as WP:NOT#CBALL. Mhym 07:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has extraneous info, I think it has too little info to be a biography. Kevin Federline's article is a biography. Graeme Frost's is not. I think this article should not be named after him but be a subsection on the controversy itself. Euphgeek 14:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the quotes in to the quotation from WHAS 11, because that part came directly from their article.

[edit]

Is that the right thing to do?

Also, thanks to whomever removed my sig from the article. Sign the talk, not the article. Sign the talk, not the article. Sign the talk, not the article. 12.191.143.61 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

ThinkProgress had the story first. They had the email. They stated this. They have a budget as large as CATO. They are a respected organization. So what does wikiality do? It first removes their link because they are not reliable. Then when it is proven that they were correct, their link is removed because it is redundant.

It's bullshit POV editing and wikiality on the part of the Wikepedia. 71.39.78.68 00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steyn

[edit]

There is no liberal in front to Krugman, etc. No need to qualify Steyn either. If you have strong opinions on the subject, please discuss here before editing. Mhym (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

As a personal friend of Graeme and his parent's I can say that his actual name is Fredrick Frost. Graeme being his middle na,e. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.88.186 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Graeme Frost. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graeme_Frost&oldid=1202160253"