Talk:Gay Talese/Archive 1

Homophobic slur/Vandalism
I have found and erased a homophobic slur in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the entry, "However, he has always been a faggot.". --Schroeder74 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been reverted by a bot to as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

His high school and first major employer out of college...
Ocean City High School (OCHS) and Adolph OCHS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.164.1 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Search for Talese
I couldn't find this page searching for "Talese", that only returned "Talesa of Aragon," no options or list. Anything to be done? Pbackstrom (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism
Just a heads up, I'm noticing some people vandalizing the article to call Talese a misogynist based off a controversial remark he made recently. I'm not sure if the remarks should be noted on the article, but keep an eye out for the vandals. Hamlet7768 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Lede Graf Specificity
I have changed “author” to “writer” and “writer” to journalist” in the lede graf. The issue is the imprecise wording of the lede sentences. “Author” and “writer” are not generally synonymous, even though some contend they are.

An author can is broad and vague term that acts as catch-all for the creator of almost anything whether it’s written, for instance, a novel, poem or short story, author also refers to the originator of things like laws, guidelines, or rules. “Writer” is more precise than “author”

“Writer” certainly is more precise than “author.” I’ll explain again. Please try to follow. An author can is broad and vague term that acts as catch-all for the creator of almost anything whether it’s written, for instance, a novel, poem or short story, author also refers to the originator of things like laws, guidelines, or rules. “Writer” is more precise than “author”

The terms “writer” and “author” are each variously ambiguous to different degrees. They are general terms, nonspecific, and hence imprecise. Note: the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) definition of writer:

1	a. A person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occasionally, one who writes in a specified manner

and the OED’s definition of author is even broader:

1.	The person who originates or gives existence to anything

It’s easy to see that “writer” is more a specific description than “author,” since an “author” could be the originator of a law or an even idea, while a “writer originates something in writing.

Poets are described as poets in Wikipedia; playwrights are described as playwrights, not authors. Novelists are novelists.

So, the lede sentence should correctly use “writer,” not “author.” The second sentence should get even more specific, as any good lede graf should. So, I’ve replaced the “writer,” not only to avoid repeating the word “writer,” but because it is more specific. A journalist is that subset of “writer” who reports and comments for newspapers and magazines.

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If author and writer are both "general terms, nonspecific, and hence imprecise", then it seems quite unnecessary to change the former to the latter. You simply have not made any substantive case for doing so. No one is going to think that Gay Talese wrote laws or originated ideas because the lead describes him as an "author" rather than a "writer", so your concerns there are baseless. As for "writer" versus "journalist", I believe it makes better sense to say that someone is a "writer for the New York Times" than that they are a "journalist for the New York Times", as it conveys more specifically what they do. Incidentally, it's "lead" and "paragraph", not "lede" and "graf". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

FKC,

Please note that I said that the “terms “writer” and “author” are each “variously ambiguous to different degrees.”

The term “author” is a vague and general catch-all for the creator of just about anything. In the lede Lede_(disambiguation) sentence, you begin with the general term and get more specific in the graf’s Graf_(disambiguation) following sentences. If you want the correct term for one who writes all kinds of different writing: novels, memoirs, short stories, poems, articles, essays, and the like, the correct term is “writer.” In the second sentence of the lede graf, we can get more specific, that is, we replace “writer” with journalist. We call people who write for newspapers and magazines “journalists.” If this writer were primarily known for his novels, essays, or criticism, we would call him a novelist, an essayist, or a critic in the lede graf’s second sentence. Here’s an example” “Joe Peschel is a freelance writer. As a journalist and critic, he’s written for….”

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what you said. You still have made no substantive case for your changes; I can only see assertions and not arguments in your comments. You provide no evidence that "writer" is a more "correct" term than "author". Someone who writes for a newspaper is indeed a journalist, but that is not a reason why a sentence must read, "Gay Talese was a journalist for the New York Times", rather than "Gay Talese was a writer for the New York Times". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)

Look, FKC,

I know you like to pretend that I’ve made no substantive case for my two word changes, but I have: Here and on my Talk page. You just keep ignoring my reasons. If you would take the time to read and understand my explanation, you would see that my changes are substantive. I also hope that you’ve taken the time to discover and to admit that “lede” and “graf” are not misspellings.

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You have produced no convincing reasons. I won't discuss unrelated trivia with you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FKC,

It’s only you who thinks I’ve produced no convincing reasons. Take the time to read, to study, and to understand my reasons. It’s not that difficult.

As for the unrelated trivia that you won’t discuss, namely the terms “lede” and “graf”—-you were the one who brought up my alleged misspellings. But now that you’ve been proven wrong, you don’t care to care discuss “trivia.” Eventually, you’ll probably say the discussion about lede specificity is trivial and you don’t want to discuss it, either.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * One of your reasons was: "It’s easy to see that “writer” is more a specific description than “author,” since an “author” could be the originator of a law or an even idea, while a “writer originates something in writing." I noted that your concern is baseless, since no one is going to think that Talese was the originator of a law. That "author" could mean the originator of a law is irrelevant if there is no reason to think that anyone would be mislead into thinking that Talese originated laws. You ignored the point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FKC,

You’ve ignored all my reasons and pretended they were baseless. As for your comment, that “no is going to think that Talese was the originator of a law”—why wouldn’t someone think that? Someone who is trying to figure out who Gay Talese is may well think the guy is a politician and quite likely to be the originator of a law.

Further, you’ll recall that I wrote, “An ‘author’ is a broad and vague term that acts as catch-all for the creator of almost anything whether it’s written, for instance, a novel, poem or short story, author also refers to the originator of things like laws, guidelines, or rules.” As you see, “originator of a law” is merely one of my many examples of what the term “author” could refer to.

There are lots of other examples of what the term “author” might refer to. You can probably think of quite a few of them yourself.

Don’t forget the OED defines “author” as the person who originates or gives existence to anything, and it defines “writer” as "A person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occasionally, one who writes in a specified manner."

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not "pretend" that your reasons were baseless, as the word "pretend" suggests bad faith on my part. I disagree with you in good faith. No one is going to think that "the guy is a politician and quite likely to be the originator of a law", because there is nothing at all in the article that suggests that Talese had anything to do with politics or writing laws. Certainly the word "author" is not going to make people think that anyone is a politician or legislator. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FKC,

Maybe you are ignoring my reasons or maybe you are pretending my reasons are baseless. Either way, I’m guessing that you just made a hasty decision and you are still trying to find a way to support your mistake.

When you insist: "No one is going to think that 'the guy is a politician and quite likely to be the originator of a law', because there is nothing at all in the article that suggests that Talese had anything to do with politics or writing laws. Certainly the word 'author' is not going to make people think that anyone is a politician or legislator."

You continue to ignore that “originator of a law” was one of many examples of what author can refer. You obviously have ignored the definition of “author” in the OED, too.

Here it is again for you to read or to pretend isn’t valid: "The person who originates or gives existence to anything."

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk)


 * Well, isn't this bizarre. I'm arguing with someone who thinks that the word "author" is going to make people think that Gay Talese is a politician or a legislator. I really don't think so, and more importantly, I really don't think that the larger Wikipedia community is going to think so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FKC,

If someone doesn’t know who Gay Talese is, he might well believe he is a politician.

Bizarre? What is bizarre is that you deliberately misstate my argument.

Here is the piece of that argument that you deliberately misrepresent:

You continue to ignore that “originator of a law” was one of many examples of what author can refer. You obviously have ignored the defintion of “author” in the OED, too:

"The person who originates or gives existence to anything."

Do you really believe you can persuade anyone to your way of thinking by deliberately making false representations of my arguments?

Cheers!

Joe JoePeschel (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is going to believe based on what is in the article that Gay Talese is a politician, because there is nothing in the article that suggests that he is a politician. What people who do not look at the article might think is irrelevant because it is only the article and its effect on the reader that is at issue. I did not ignore your point that "author" can mean "originator of a law"; I patiently explained to you that the point is irrelevant because nothing in the article would make anyone think that this is the meaning of "author" intended here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FKC,

If someone is looking for a description of Talese, he may see “author” and think “author of what?” Novels? Essays? Memoirs? Poems? Rules? And yes, even laws.

Again, you continue to ignore that “originator of a law” was one of many examples of what author can refer to. This is what I originally said:

"''' An author can is a broad and vague term that acts as catch-all for the creator of almost anything whether it’s written, for instance, a novel, poem or short story, author also refers to the originator of things like laws, guidelines, or rules." ''' These are called examples.

Again, I’ll tell you what the OED gives as the definition of “author”  The person who originates or gives existence to anything. 

With this information readily available to you, you should be able come up with other examples of things that an “author” might originate or give existence to.

Because the term “author” is a vague catch-all, it should be replaced with “writer.”

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no one is going to see the word "author" and think that Talese is an author of laws. No one is likely to think that "author" means legislator at any article, least of all an article that contains no information suggesting that its subject is a legislator. Your position is thus absurd. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FKC,

That’s not my position and you know it—-and anyone else who reads this Talk page knows it, too. You are deliberately being deceitful in order to try to score points in an argument that even you know you’ve lost.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not waste my time and that of others by complaining that I have deliberately misrepresented your position (which is a serious violation of WP:AGF, in addition to being tedious). Just say calmly what your position actually is, so that other editors can then decide for or against it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FKC,

You have deliberately misstated my position. Anyone, including you, can figure out what my position is, just by reading my first post on this page.

So, go ahead: scroll up, read, study, understand.

All that you’ve done in your penultimate post is offered a straw-man argument.

Cheers! Joe JoePeschel (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I have not deliberately misstated your position, and nor have you produced any evidence that I have. Read WP:AGF, which gives good advice to never behave in the way that you have just behaved. If you cannot make your position understood, you might want to consider that this is due to your failure to explain yourself properly, and has nothing to do with other editors wickedly misrepresenting you. In your first meandering post, at the start of this discussion, you stated that, "The terms “writer” and “author” are each variously ambiguous to different degrees. They are general terms, nonspecific, and hence imprecise", which certainly fails to suggest any significant difference between the two terms. You plausibly suggested various differences, but unfortunately failed to explain why they would matter. "Author" may indeed have a broader significance than "writer", but that does not establish any decisive reason for preferring the latter term. You may consider the difference crucial; that does not mean that others will agree. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FKC,

You have ignored my answers and reasons. And you have pretended to misunderstand my answers and reasons or deliberately misrepresented my reasons. I think anyone following this little back-and-forth of ours would surely see that and they would agree with me.

For a while, I assumed you were disagreeing in good faith, but I have answered your questions again and again and you continually ignore my answers and ask me the same questions. Then, you deliberately misrepresent my position, which I’ve made to clear to you on this Talk page and my Talk page.

If you think I have behaved badly or inappropriately, report me.

Cheers!

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion request
Hi, I'm following up on the request for input posted at WP:3. Having read through the discussion above, it seems that the discussion about whether "author" or "writer" would be a more apt description has become intractable, with neither side willing to concede validity. I think there's merits in both sides of the argument, and so in circumstances like this, when both sides have a case, I find that it's usually best to take a step back and reframe the debate. Instead of trying to determine what the correct word should be, it might be more useful to try to ascertain what the most common word is in terms of existing writing. This is also more in keeping with Wikipedia's role as a summary of existing writing on a subject.

With that in mind, I took a look through some profiles of Gay Talese based on the first three pages of a Google search and sources listed in the article itself. Here's what I found:

So by my count that's 7 for "writer", 4 for "author" and 2 for "journalist". That suggests that both are valid, but there is a preference for "writer". Perhaps most importantly, "writer" is the term used on the publisher's page, which would presumably have been approved by Gay Talese himself, suggesting that "writer" is his own preferred term. I'd also note that the article is part of Category:The New York Times writers, which uses "writers", and looking through the other articles in the category it seems that for journalists who have also written books "writer" is the more common term. I'm usually reluctant to cite precedent on Wikipedia itself (as there are quite a few bad precedents), but altogether this points to "writer" being the more commonly used term in contexts like this. Therefore, I'd suggest using the term "writer" on the basis of more common usage + usage by the subject of the article themselves. Daduzi  talk  03:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Daduzi. Unless a Wikipedia editor has some expertise on the subject(s), s/he should probably refrain from writing and editing Wikipedia articles. I’m sure FKC would disagree. But if more experts contributed, there would not be “quite a few bad” Wikipedia articles.

Cheers! --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Daduzi, thank you for offering a calm third opinion that does not digress into irrelevant issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)