Talk:Chris Hackett (artist)

Engineer?
The article describes Mr. Hackett as an engineer. I'm not disputing this is possible. But an "engineer" is a specific thing, and I think that the article might benefit by supporting the application of this title, or qualifying what exactly Mr. Hackett's professional / educational background is that supports the title of "engineer". Unless verifiable references show up that support the title of "engineer" for Mr. Hackett, I will probably remove it. No ill-will intended, it's just that an "engineer" is a specific thing. Johnny Squeaky (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

i have this debate in the IT world often also but to qualify as an engineer you need a recognized accreditation from a field of engineering. IT pros will use term but lack a degree in engineering majority of time (unless picke dup as a alt degree unrelated to job). if Chris Hackett lacks a degree in engineering then he can not label himself as one. this is also consistant with the Engineering Wiki page description of an engineer. 101.167.226.86 (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The Madagascar Institute
This section is way too log and exceeds what is necessary and relevant to describe Hackett's involvement. Much of the content of this section in fact describes events not directly connected to Hackett. I think it's excessive, and perhaps The Madagascar Institute needs it's own page? But certainly this too much for the Hackett page. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Squeaky (talk • contribs)
 * I have the article&talk watchlisted, but there seem to be some hitches with that of late, thanks for the alert.
 * I tried to make sure that in each cited source, Hackett is mentioned as involved. If I let one slip in there in which he wasn't directly involved, it's arguably still on his watch - this is discussable. He's not uninvolved - I haven't found a source that states that. If you find one, by all means, let's include that fact in context. All sections should be expanded to establish breadth, depth, and chronological duration, hence the events over the years. We should rehab (rewrite/source) COI contributions, and address the glaring lack of sources. Articles should be expanded, generally, to get out of stub class.
 * I'm concerned about your repeated assertion of "too long" - by what policy or guideline, specifically? The section might seem long because the rest of the article is so underdeveloped, and undercited. The MI does should now have its own page, but I've not gotten to that yet.  Should material not be added because the other sections have not been expanded? I was surprised to find all the applicable sources out there, quite suitable for overall article expansion. And I haven't really scratched the surface, though I'm mostly done with the MI section.
 * If you think the writing is poor, or unencyclopedic in some way, we should discuss that. I don't know if you noticed that I trimmed and copyedited the section after creating it. I would tend to object to deletion of reliably sourced material relevant to the article subject.
 * Did you have a problem with my partial revert over at Stuck with Hackett? Are we cool?--Lexein (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really do. This page isn't about The Madagascar Institute, and if The Madagascar Institute needs an artical, that's fine. But going into such detail about The Madagascar Institute itself exceeds the scope of this article which is not about The Madagascar Institute. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My question was: do you have a problem with this edit?
 * We disagree about the Madagascar Institute here; I'm pretty sure an article about MI in its current state would be speedily deleted, so it belongs here until then. I hope you're not saying it should just be deleted. If you could mention a policy or guideline which limits the content of BLP articles about the organizations a person builds, expands, and stays involved with, that would be good.
 * Why not just expand the rest of the article sections which don't have enough notability yet for their own article?
 * Do you want to call in WP:3O here? I'm totally fine with that.--Lexein (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The page is not about The Madagascar Institute. Instead of "Wikilawyering", why don't you start a Madagascar Institute page? =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)