Talk:Jon-Marc McDonald

Untitled comments

I hope I am doing this right. My question is this Does the last sentence of the article that reads:

Though the site has achieved acclaim from the culinary industry, it has struggled to find a wider audience since its inception

need a citation and if one cannot be found, should the sentence be erased? Thanks FanEMay (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. I've removed the sentence, but if you can find a source for it, please feel free to re-add it. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Another question. I feel the three videos that are Bon Appetit picks should be part of this article . Why was it erased since it had citation? Also the part about Michael Wooley was erased. That was cited as well so I am confused as to why it was erased. Please help. I am new to all of this. I am going to reinstate the things with citations until further clarification. Thank you for the answer to my first question from 14 October FanEMay (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the Bon Appetit vids - YouTube, in general, is not considered a reliable source. And the Bot Appetit website only mentions that it even has a YouTube channel once. So the interaction between the magazine, the website, and YouTube, is all unclear.

Regarding the Wooley information, that seemed very tangential. It isn't about McDonald, it's about the song (written by other people) and Obama - it's a real stretch to say that it's about McDonald.

Just my opinion, mind you :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Question for you: The article starts out naming McDonald as a writer. I find nothing besides his blog and website - are there other things he's written? Because I'm thinking that sentence should just be:

Jon-Marc McDonald (born 1976 September 17) is an American political activist, blogger, and an accomplished baker.

BTW, the article says nothing about baking, though it does talk about his culinary website. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All very true. I think the Bon Appetit citation should stay. Even if BA does mention it only once, it still mentions it.

I think the Obama song is significant because there is not much on the web about the song (that I can find) so McDonald's announcement about it is all I have to go on.

I cannot find anything that he has written either, other than, as you note, his blog and website, so I agree about striking the writer.

Sorry for so many questions, but here is another. The website (BITYMI) says his birthday is 20 of September but the article says 17 September. What to do there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FanEMay (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect his own website is a good source for his birthday :)

I'm sorry, but I still disagree about the Obama song - it really has almost nothing to do with McDonald and strays far afield from his biography. But I could live with keeping the Bon Appetit, though I'm still wary of it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're the expert. I'll remove the questionable things cited above. FanEMay (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed birthday info and spouse info until it can be verified.

Also, I know he did a lot of work with a non-profit in lower Manhattan after the attacks of 9/11. I cannot find any info. as of now. However, it would be good to include that once it can be verified. The work he did was free of charge and for two or three years. I'll keep trying to see what I can find but thought I would put it out there if anyone else happens to find anything.

And would it be redundant to include that he resides in NYC? At the end of the article?

LaughAlotDot (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> Probably, but do as you feel necessary :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations of articles that must be paid for in order to view

SatyrTN, I hope you can help! This may need to go in some general help area not related to this article since the answer would apply in every case But here goes. I hope this makes sense: There are several articles that have been written about the subject, or that quote him, that deal with a wide range of topics, from his time at Barnes & Noble (media campaigns he instigated, Harry Potter releases, etc)to some of his work as a publicist. However, these articles are "pay per view", if you will, much like the Dallas Morning News citation (#9) in the J-MM article. The difference is that the byline in the DMN article includes McDonald's name, clearly establishing McDonald as the subject. The articles that I have found do not mention his name in the summery and require purchase of the articles (some from the AP and elsewhere)in order to read their content. There are two problems with this. 1) I don't want to purchase an article that might mention McDonald and then realize it does not (though given the subject of the articles, they probably all do) and 2) even if I did fork over the two or three dollars for each archived article, if I cite it in the references section of Wiki's J-MM article, the reader will not be able to read the article unless they purchase it, and will not even know that McDonald was in the article from the summery.

Should I (If I decide to purchase. Big if!) cite them with as much detail and not worry about whether or not the Wiki user can get through to the article cited, knowing that if for whatever reason they need to see the article in question they will purchase too? Or is their another service online that maybe you could point me to that would have these articles that are not showing up on search engines?

So sorry for the drawn out questions. I just need some help. Thank you so much for your time! -- LaughAlotDot (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm - some *very* good questions.

I have, on rare occasions, used articles as sources that I ended up paying for - the New York Times has a couple like that. I remember a guideline or policy somewhere that discussed this, but I can't remember where. The gist of it was that, if you wanted, you could go to a library and get the source for free. Sources like that are fine to use - cite them in the article with the pertinent details. Including a link is for convenience only, so you *could* use {{cite news}} without the URL and be fine. The information is in the article, you've referenced the article, and if someone wants to find it, they can. That could be online, in a library, or by calling the paper, that's up to them - you've given them everything they need to find it.

Another possibility, that I don't think you're suggesting, is that the info is some sort of company document that they charge for. In that case, there isn't a free version available at all, so I wouldn't use it.

Hope that helps! Happy editing :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Coming Out page and other questions

Hey SatyrTN, some more questions for you since you seem to be a veritable Wiki God!

The more research I do on this article as well as others the more I feel this should be linked in other articles like the coming out article. As the CO article stands now, it has entertainers who have been outed or come-out on their own, a government employee (Frank Kameny) that was fired, etc. but none about people such as McDonald who, in the political world, came out on their own.

The reason I think McDonald's story is unique and should be linked in pages like the CO article (and others) is because of how unheard of it was at the time for him to do what he did, especially given his family lineage and the person he was working for. I know for a fact that his self-outing (if you will) was used as an example in a college course in 1999. However I cannot find anything to verify it by Wiki standards so I have not included it.

But it should be noted that his decision to come-out in such a public way was not only potentially physically dangerous (after all, I learned through my research that the 2nd district where he worked was the home of the James Byrd Jr. dragging death just a month prior to McDonald's resignation, which could be his motivation for issuing a press release without first discussing it with Babin. But that is just speculation) but also professionally dangerous.

And, I figured out why his resignation did not get *even* more play media wise. It was at the time of the entire Monica Lewinsky affair and the press was nearly solely fixated on that. In fact (and this cannot be verified by Wiki standards so I did not include it) Greta Van Susteren, at the time with CNN, called McDonald to ask if he had heard rumors that the White House, under the direction of Clinton, had tried to out McDonald before he outed himself. Those rumors turned out to be baseless.

Ok, so I write all that in order to drive home how unique McDonald's decision to out himself in such a public way was (and in many respects, still is) and think that a mention on the Coming Out page would be warranted.

2) Next question is, how do I get this article out of a start-class rating? It is now thoroughly reffed and gives a complete picture of the subject with more things to flesh out (his work at Barnes & Noble and his work as a publicist)but as it stands now, is it still considered part of the "start class"?

Thank you so much for your time. You have been more than gracious and I can't tell you how thoroughly enjoyable this process has been. In fact I have already decided to write two more articles about prominent LGBT people, Adam Brecht (ran for senate as a gay republican from New York) and Hastings Wyman (former staffer of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms and founder of the Southern Political Report).

• The above was written by LaughAlotDot (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lolz :) Glad you're having fun - I find Wikipedia to be fun as well, and if it isn't, it's exhilarating :)

If you believe McDonald belongs on the coming out page, by all means, add him. You may get some push-back, but you can either point to your reasons here or bring it up on Talk:Coming out.

Ratings, with only three exceptions, are entirely user-driven. So if you feel the article is C-Class or B-Class, by all means, bump it up. Personally, I think it's C and doesn't qualify for B. Mostly because he's not *that* well known, and therefore there's not necessarily that much info available on him. BTW, WP:ASSESS has info about the ratings and what they mean.

If you choose to go further with the article, you might want a peer review from one of the WikiProjects - WikiProject Biography or WikiProject LGBT studies are two possibilities. And/or you could take the article to Good Article nominations. The step after that is Featured Article.

Hope all that helps out! Also, if you're interested, stop by WP:LGBT, take a look around, and perhaps even join up! One of our members just got Harvey Milk up to Featured status - we're all proud she did it before the movie comes out :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, SatyrTN! Just a question about the ratings. I could find nothing about how well someone was or was not known with regards to class. I believe, based on the page you led me to, that the article would be a B-class article if I add a "lead" paragraph summarizing the content. It seems to me to meet all other five criteria.

As for the inclusion of this on the Coming Out page,I'm going to try and see if I get push back as you say. Wish me luck!LaughAlotDot (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Before you rate it a "B", would you do me the favor of looking over some other B-Class articles, just to see if you still agree? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I did already. And I agree, at this point a C. I have looked over some B rated articles. I need to work on this some before I would be comfortable with the B class. However, I am still not sure what how "well known" someone is has to do with a rating. But nonetheless, I am going to tweak it and add some stuff and maybe down the road it will be worth a B. For now, a C.LaughAlotDot (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm talking about is what materials are available. When one is "well known", people write about you, and Wikipedia has more material to draw from, so the article will be longer. If one spends one's life in a shell, a Wikipedia article about you is going to be *very* short :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I will not write any articles about me :). I live in a shell.

I guess we're going to go around in circles on this one. My point was that, once an article passes the notability threshold of Wikipedia, an article's known or not known status does not seem to be sufficient grounds for classification. I am not sure I would say that McDonald has lived his life in a shell, either. But I will do my best to flesh it out with what I have. Thanks again LaughAlotDot (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)