Talk:Dan Rodricks

His combative, occasionally inflammatory nature is part of the story
Improved the edit I made, but it definitely belongs there. You're not telling a very encyclopedic version of the Rodricks story if you leave out his often lightning rod style, love him or hate him.

GattusoBayard (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)GattusoBayard

Read it without discussion of his tone, controversial nature, and it reads as bland hagiography, leaving out what's relevant (why he's important in Baltimore). Stand by the edit as lending an important set of details you might not know if not familiar with the local market; it's also properly sourced.

GattusoBayard (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)GattusoBayard

Added more information to remove any reason for the (unsubstantiated, I'll note) suggestion I have a personal relationship with Rodricks. I do not. What's the point of having an encyclopedic entry on a columnist if you can't note some of things he's known for commenting on?

Wikipedia terms suggests having a discussion. Why not discuss here why you're removing something that is A) accurate, B) properly sourced, C) lends a more thorough understanding of the man, and D) avoids bland hagiography?

GattusoBayard (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)GattusoBayard

I removed what could be construed as editorializing in re: response to the pit bull editorial, but the rest should stand. He's known for lightning-rod stances on the issues widely discussed in Baltimore and referencing his stances is perfectly in keeping with a solid reference for an opinion columnist. Imagine the Wiki page for HL Mencken or Rush Limbaugh not referencing viewpoints they took.

GattusoBayard (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)GattusoBayard

You clearly have a stake in linking this columnist to a particular issue (pitbulls) that by all accounts is not usual to this writer. Wikipedia does not appreciate personal bias in stories.Balloftwine (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How is that clear? Unsubstantiated and undocumented ad hominem. Why shouldn't the entry reflect why people are talking about him, and why shouldn't he be linked to what he writes?

It's like saying the people editing the Limbaugh page have a "stake" in linking him to Sandra Fluke, as referring to law students as sluts isn't usual to him either per se. Opinion columnists who write inflammatory things that get the public roiling are often linked to what they wrote or said. My only "stake" is the truth, and it's a shame you take that to be a "personal bias". I rather doubt that's really what Wikipedia thinks.

GattusoBayard (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)GattusoBayard

What, no claims I have a personal stake in gun control or immigration or tax policy? Telling. Standing by the argument an encyclopedic entry should reflect his stances and why he's a notable figure in the community where he's relevant.

GattusoBayard (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)GattusoBayard