Talk:Joel Brinkley

Neutrality Dispute
There currently is an edit war on this page. Please pay attention to 3RR. For further information, see Dispute_resolution.Chrisvanlang (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the information regarding Joel's recent controversial article should be included. There isn't any real reason why it shouldn't be there.Chrisvanlang (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The controversy is all from blog posts at the bottom of the article and other blog sites. Is there mention of the controversy in mainstream acceptable RS?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is. The San Jose Mercury News should qualify as RS. However, I agree that the blog sites shouldn't be used.Chrisvanlang (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From WP:UNDUE "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The Mercury News just quotes a vocal minority that responded to the article. There are only 101 of those comments total. I would consider that as a vastly limited minority. If the Pope beaks off about it then I can see its inclusion. Should we email the Pope, Obama, and the Queen for opinions?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "There are only 101 comments" is an understatement. Many people said that because other people have pointed out all the fallacies and falsehoods already, they don't have to. The Stanford Vietnamese Student Association wrote a response yesterday too. The scale of this is much larger than you think. thanhhaimai (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is Asian American news we're talking about, not evolution vs. intelligent design. If things weren't represented in the blogosphere, Linsanity may just as well never happened. The key element of due and undue weight is that the various significant viewpoints are represent. What then is the majority opinion if the controversy is represented by the minority?Chrisvanlang (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Chicago Tribune mentioned it . I also believe the information regarding his controversial article should be included. thanhhaimai (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That section was not even trying to hide its bias and deserved to be removed. It was worded like a blog post instead of something you would see in an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't put it in but I'm of the opinion that the event should still be thereChrisvanlang (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you get an email back from the Pope? You will need to have it notarized as a source.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the lock ends in 24 hr we should come to a consensus. Should I propose a version that we can accept?Chrisvanlang (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC) The policy says "while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized" (WP:NOT). I'm having trouble understanding your remark, because it sounds as though you mean that a topic should only be in Wikipedia if it's currently in the news. — rybec   23:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you in a hurry to seek a new consensus that agrees with your point of view? We already have a consensus. The material is too trivial to include. You could try making a few sock accounts, twitter all your friends to !vote, etc, but I doubt it will change the content of the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus? From what I can see, it's just you suggesting that I talk with the pope. DreamGuy is only commenting about the neutrality of the section.Chrisvanlang (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was discussed at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You could bring it up there again if you wish, but I doubt the consensus will change unless sources to more substantial coverage are found. Is it still in the news or was it just a flash in the pan?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a consensus not to include the material. It was reached on the BLP notice board, and if you want to attempt to form a new consensus, that's where the discussion should take place, rather than here. Yworo (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will bring this back up on the BLP, from my understanding there was no concensus and that the discussion should occur here.171.64.127.6 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've restored the discussion from the archive. I had found some "more substantial coverage" but my comment may have been overlooked.
 * "Is it still in the news or was it just a flash in the pan?"

Can you provide a link to a BBC article on it? The Thanh Nien writer admits he emailed the article to a bunch of friends for opinions which is OR and POV on his part. The Huff post I would rather not even discuss as an RS for an encylopedia. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * answered at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard — rybec   04:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joel Brinkley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201170324/http://www.tmsfeatures.com/bio/joel-brinkley/ to http://www.tmsfeatures.com/bio/joel-brinkley/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115123418/http://www.tmsfeatures.com/bio/joel-brinkley/ to http://www.tmsfeatures.com/bio/joel-brinkley/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)