Talk:John Gruber

NPOV
"His blog often seeks to refute criticism of Steve Jobs, Apple, and its products." clearly is personal opinion. I removed it. 80.108.92.34 13:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not untrue at all. Gruber himself describes himself as "the fanboys' fanboy". His entire raison d'etre is - to use his own words - to be a "Mac snob". And whilst he is sometimes critical of Apple he will most often use underhanded logic to make Apple come up smelling like a rose. This speaks not only for Gruber but for his following and is an important sociological observation. To remove such a sentence without attempting to paraphrase it better is to do something unbecoming of Wikipedia. Note as well the sentence says "often" and not "exclusively". Thus your stating this was a personal opinion is ironically the only personal opinion in this context. The sentence should be paraphrased and restored ASAP. 86.207.164.241
 * For subjective or synthesis statements, it's a good idea to find a citation or some kind of evidence before adding them to the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not met this guy, but the article seems very biased and opinion based, not up to the usual standards of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.47.22.84 (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello 200.47.22.84 - I wonder if your concerns are mostly about this paragraph, which was added recently and which I just removed:

Entries on the Daring Fireball blog are noted for their length and verbosity (as well as their injudicious use of quoting). Whilst some people – most notably from the so-called "fan boy" community – laud this style as being indicative of his depth of knowledge regarding the Mac platform, others are less sure of his position to make comment. This scepticism is backed up by the fact that John Gruber has no software to his name aside from a handful of AppleScripts.

There may be a grain of truth in there somewhere, but the supporting citation is a opinion post, not a reliable source, so it doesn't belong in the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this guy notable enough to have a Wikipedia page?
I don't see any indication that he has done anything that millions of other people have: He writes a blog and gives talks. What reason is there for keeping this page? Aardvark92 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * He invented Markdown, which created a revolution in publishing on the web. And created controversy for a decade by his public attacks on anyone who tried to improve on his original buggy Perl script, or to standardize the markup format, including some of the most popular web sites. Perhaps some of the discussion about Gruber and the many sources about him from the Markdown page should be copied or paraphrased here, or rewritten more from the point of view of Gruber the person. But there can't be any question about his notability. I'm removing the notability template. If someone wants to add a stub template, that I could hear. StormWillLaugh (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's already marked as a stub. Fine. This article definitely needs some serious work. But notability is definitely not an issue. StormWillLaugh (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think there needs to be some substantiation for the claim that Markdown created a "revolution in publishing on the web".
 * I'm not saying Gruber isn't notable, I just think he hasn't necessarily been shown notable yet. I also think his notability would be easier to establish via his Apple enthusiast blog, which has given him far more name recognition than Markdown. Filjil (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs)
 * He's pretty well known in tech community, for several things he does now and has done in the past. So yes, perfectly acceptable for WP. Not everyone on here has to be Michael Jackson level of fame before having a page, lol. Jimthing (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Excessive use of primary sources
In its current state, this article overuses primary sources to the point of violating the no original research policy. Specifically, WP:PSTS states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." In contrast, almost all of the content in this article cites Gruber's own blog and podcast instead of independent secondary sources, which makes this article more of a fan page than an encyclopedia entry. Please remember that secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia and limit the use of primary sources to avoid giving undue weight to aspects of the article subject that are not covered by independent reliable sources. —  Newslinger  talk   05:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)