Talk:Byron Coley

Chuck Norris biography

Yes, it's hard to believe. But it's true. TortureIsWrong 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Restored information about this book. I didn't know a link to Amazon was not allowed. I'll find another.TortureIsWrong 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't appreciate that characterization of my edits, but thank you for finding a proper source. The Behnam 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You could have done the same, instead of deleting perfectly good information. TortureIsWrong 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll need to re-remove the 'bit of an anomaly' statement. I don't know why that is there, it seems POV, and it is not even projected from a source. Sorry but I don't know anything about the ISBN stuff and cannot figure out how to use the current source, but I looked at the isbnbooks thing and saw that it was listed so I'm fine on that. But seriously, what is with the anomaly thing? I'll take it out. Cheers. The Behnam 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's "a bit of an anomaly" given the rest of his career, which is obvious and not really POV at all. It's as if noted football writer Paul Zimmerman had also written a book about umbrella collecting. But I'll add "in what some would say" to get rid of the perceived POV problem. TortureIsWrong 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that would be classic weasel words there. It is especially off since there aren't any sources about who is saying that. Perhaps you should just not care about adding that particular POV commentary. The Behnam 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll ask you to read the Zimmerman comparison again. I think it's a reasonable one and I've already compromised here. Get a neutral opinion if you want. Just make it a truly neutral one. TortureIsWrong 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think that you would see very easily by just by reading WP:WEASEL, but I'll get a 'neutral' person. But which users are neutral enough for you? The Behnam 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • I actually agree with you - it works better without the "weasel words," but I was trying to compromise. I think the original wording is just fine. What do you find irrational about the Zimmerman comparison? TortureIsWrong 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked User:Bignole for now, as I know him to be fairly neutral and uninvolved in the conflicts at the RFC. I don't understand why you can't see it for yourself, but if a third opinion is what it takes, I'll try getting one. Cheers. The Behnam 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the problem is that it is (y)our own comparison and isn't simple logical deduction. Why not just remove it? I don't think the article gains much from the POV observation. If it so obvious the reader will pick that up on his own. I'm asking you to remove it because I think it demonstrates a conflict resolution much better than me doing it, but if you still question this removal, please ask away. The Behnam 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I'll try one more time - please address the Zimmerman comparison. I can tell you that people familiar with Coley's work are ALWAYS astonished to find out that he wrote the Norris bio. I'll even look for a source, but I think it's apparent from the rest of the article. TortureIsWrong 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Then the personal commentary should be entirely necessary because of this obviousness. Please remove it, thanks. The Behnam 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I'm not seeing the "anomaly" part. There isn't a written rule that states someone that writes about music cannot write about something else entirely. If you say "in what might be perceived as an anomaly", without reliable sourcing to back it up, then you are committing original research. The "logical deduction" that is exempt from OR is applied to situations that don't need sources, like saying "The Miami Heat have a win percentage of 54%", as opposed to saying "The Miami Heat have won 54 games out of 100". I would look for a reliable critic that mentions this "deviation for the norm" when critiquing the Norris biography. Then I'd write is as, "In a deviation from his normal genre of writing, Coley published a biography of actor/martial artists Chuck Norris in 1986."{{insert citation here}}. It doesn't have to read exactly like that, but saying "in what can be perceived", you're violation original research. You need to just ascert what is what, and to do that you should find a reliable source that mentions this. For the time being, until a source can be found, I'd just leave it as "In 1986, Coley published a biography on actor/martial artist Chuck Norris."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • There is no "reliable critic," of course. Coley isn't a "major" writer. I have to say I'm disappointed by your analysis, but in the interest of consensus I'll get rid of the anomaly language and Behnam's "weasel words" banner.TortureIsWrong 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for cooperating. And indeed, the banners are kind of annoying; I suppose it is to get people's attention. Anyway, cheers. The Behnam 21:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean to tell me that there isn't a single book critic that has reviewed the Chuck Norris biography? Also, if Coley isn't a "major" writer then his departure from music shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Do we know if he was just a really big Chuck Norris fan?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • The book was written over 20 years ago - a cheap knock-off biography (though well written) by a minor publisher. Books of that sort aren't often reviewed, and they're generally written by freelance writers for relatively small fees. Is there some reason to continue this discussion? I included the information to improve the article - Coley has fans who will appreciate the information, even if you do not. TortureIsWrong 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First, please stop using bullets. Secondly, I have a book called The Detective, written in 1966 and it has reviews from book critics, hell I have the sequel to it, Nothing Lasts Forever (which is the bases for the film Die Hard) and that book has reviews on the back of it for The Detective. BTW, that book was written in the '80s. So obviously you don't know what you are talking about and haven't taken the time to actually do any research for sources. Anything published is bound to be reviewed by someone. Now, it may not be reviewed by high-end critics, but some professional book critic is bound to have read it. Try doing a little research; try using Google News Archives. You can search back for decades. Now, here's the important part, because I know you are going to try and pull something with this "google search" that I suggested, the search finds will most likely be for hard copy sources. They will be information that has been uploaded to the web that originated in a newspaper or magazine. If there are absolutely no reviews of the book, oh well, that's life. But please loose the hostile attitude that you are directing at me, and that I have seen you direct at Behnam (e.g. "you're a swell guy). You're particular brand of sarcasm is not necessary. I have done nothing but provide an outside opinion and some reasonable solutions that would help YOU be able to include the information that YOU want. If you don't want to take the time to look for some resources, that's your prerogative, but I do not appreciate the attitude. I shall not get into a debate about your attitude, nor shall I post on this articles talk page again. I've provided you with some solutions, and brought to your attention what I believe to be a rather uncivil manner of conducting yourself on this page. How you choose to edit from here on out is up to you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • My point was certainly NOT that books printed 20 years ago weren't reviewed, just books of that particular variety. Apparently we're not communicating. TortureIsWrong 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Please remove your comments from this page which are not DIRECTLY related to the subject of this article and editing it. Your back and forth accusations belong off-wiki or at least in the user talk namespace. Other editors like myself do not need to see this childish display of incivility. Jerry 02:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I don't think you know the full history here. I've removed language from my own posts, but not from those of others, because it doesn't seem like something I should do. TortureIsWrong 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you. Jerry 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)