Talk:Rob Enderle/Archive 1

NPOV
I have removed the second paragraph. It cited no references and gave no hint as to what the supposed controversy was about or whether Mr. Enderle's "controversial" prediction came to pass. I've also removed the name-calling -- why should anyone care what those guys think about Enderle? —Fleminra 03:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 iMac announcement
I think the new paragraph about the August 2007 iMac announcement is completely trivial and should be removed. There seems to be some insinuation that this would be somehow scandalous, but if that's the case, the paragraph should be explicit about it. —Fleminra 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal life
In http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34004/128/1/2/ we have:
 * I still get a kick out of going to my Wikipedia page and seeing the false profile a few folks likely had fun creating. For instance I’m still married, have only been married once, and to my knowledge have never known a Fiona.

Somebody has already removed this, but if there has been covert vandalism to this article then the whole thing could do with going over. —Sladen 07:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point out when Enderle's wikipedia page ever said anything about his married life? I did some looking, and couldn't find it. Not that I'm accusing him of being habitually truth-challenged, but I did decide that before I took his claim at face value that his Wikipedia page talked about him getting divorced or about knowing a "Fiona", that I'd want to see evidence of such vandalism, and how long his wiki page stayed in such a state. I wasn't able to find anything at all; can someone tell me if I missed something obvious? Ted 02:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Enderle&diff=160115997&oldid=155757510 —Fleminra 06:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"should be noted"
Why should some parts of this article "be noted" and others not? That's what I added the for. —Fleminra (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That whole sentence is awkward and doesn't say anything about Enderle, his predictions or Macobserver. I'm removing it. --98.204.112.111 (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"It should be noted" because it shows that the Death Knell counter is at least partially wrong in its claims. One can follow the links provided and quickly discover that this is in fact true. While his unpopularity with Apple enthusiast is relevent, it is also relevent that he detractors are not being completely honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamujin (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OR and WP:POV. You are inserting your own assertion, rather than that of a third party. 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.112.111 (talk)

"Apple Death Knell Counter"
This site makes a claim and provides links to back up its "count". Having followed the links, I find that they do not all actually predict Apples demise. I think the "Apple Death Knell Counter" reference should be removed as unreliable. It is clear that Rob Enderle is unpopular with Apple fans, but I think this should be documented in a more factual way. -Kamujin 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you're new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the policies on point of view and citing sources. What you are doing isn't simply citing a source, but rather, providing your analysis (accurate or not) of a third-party analysis. That amounts to original research. Also, I see that you've added POV tags to citations - this is inappropriate. There is nothing POV about pointing out that MacObserver has a "Apple Death Knell Counter", or that John Gruber has criticized Enderle. It is, however, POV to provide your own critique of MacObserver or Enderle's critiques. I have nothing against Enderle, but I do have an issue with another user making assumptions about my motivations or unencyclopedic phrases like "it should be noted" in articles. --98.204.112.111 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's clear you don't like the guy. We get it! You don't like him! Honestly, I think the whole personal attack section should be removed and replaced with something more factual. The "Death Knell" is clearly not reliable. Additionally, John Gruber says "your yucky" is not particularly usefull. If Rob Enderle has such a bad track record, there should be some studies with verifiable references to support the argument. With that, its clearly just John Gruber's point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamujin (talk • contribs) 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether I like Enderle or not is neither here nor there. You're grossly misunderstanding Wikipedia's policies. The NPOV policy applies, not to outside sources like Gruber and MacObserver, but Wikipedia editors themselves. In fact, Wikipedia encourages editors to cite third party opinions - articles wouldn't have much content otherwise. And Gruber is not "a John Doe" - he is a notable technology pundit. Maybe not as notable as Enderle, but certainly notable enough to warrant his own Wikipedia article. If you want to question his notablity as a pundit, then perhaps you want to propose the Gruber article for deletion.


 * Anyway, let me summarize my most recent edit:
 * The fact that MacObserver cited more instances of Enderle predicting Apple's doom than any other pundit is not in dispute. Citing that is not in violation of NPOV. I am removing the NPOV tag.
 * MacObserver is a perfectly reliable source for the purpose of showing the number of times Enderle is featured in the Apple Death Knell Counter. I am removing the unreliable source tag.
 * The fact that Gruber describes Enderle as being almost always wrong is not in dispute. I am removing the NPOV tag.
 * While Wikipedia discourages self-published sources, Daring Fireball is a reliable source for the purpose of citing Gruber's own punditry. I am removing the dispute tag.
 * Now, you are free to question MacObserver's accuracy. Noting that one of Enderle's predictions actually came true belatedly so it is accurate, is your own assessment. That is in fact not NPOV, and does not belong in this article. I am removing your analysis from the article.


 * Really, the "it should be noted" is the least of issues here. Rather than question other users and calling them vandals (and violating WP:AGF in the process), I urge you to read over Wikipedia's policies again and make sure you fully understand it, rather than interpreting it to suit your needs. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added to say, if you think the article is too anti-Enderle and Apple fanboy-ish, instead of questioning the cited sources, you should be able to cite Enderle defenders from published sources. It's not up to you to defend Enderle or question his critics; rather, it's up to you to find notable third-party sources who defend Enderle. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

I am new to editing this wiki, so I hope you'll forgive me for newbie errors. These unverified personal attacks have no place in an Encyclopedia. Kamujin (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"WP:LIVING"
Having read up on the policies and guidlines regarding biographical material about a living person, I am confident that the "Death Knell Counter" and "John Gruber" citations should be deleted for the following reasons.

1) WP:VERFIY with emphasis on WP:RS. The "Death Knell" citation presents itself as a study of analyst opinions. There is no dispute that the citation exists, but the macObserver does not meet the guidelines of a reliable source as noted below. Additonally, there is no peer review or other citation from reliable sources to back up claims of macObserver. It is inherent in the process of analysing to point out the pitfalls of potential mistakes. The "Death Knell" citation fails to provide a scientific and unbiased study of Rob Enderle's work to verify its claims.

Additional, while it is clear from the citation that John Gruber does not like Rob Enderle, the citation provided does not provide a peer reviewed reliable study of Rob Enderle's predictive accumen.

Scholarship

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.

The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred. Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.

2) "Death Knell" and "John Gruber" as critism. As the current article stands, the "Death Knell" and "John Gruber" citations give a disprortionate amount of space to their critics. In addition, it appear to side with the critics.

Biographies of living persons - Criticism The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

3) WP:NPOV The neutral point of view policy is a responsibility of all editors. It had been previously suggested that "if you think the article is too anti-Enderle and Apple fanboy-ish, instead of questioning the cited sources, you should be able to cite Enderle defenders from published sources". I do not beleive that WP:NPOV gives a particular editor the right to outsource their WP:NPOV responsibility to another editor.


 * Sorry to interrupt, but the difficulty seems to be that Rob makes his living not (as most analyst seem to do) through sober study and reportage of industry movements, but his willingness to state opinions that a majority of his readers find controversial. I believe this is a great talent of his - but not one that endears him to critics, but perhaps one which makes him well loved by publishers.


 * In that case, the most fair way of representing his life's work would be to point to his prolific publishing history, and the great deal of negative comments that have arisen as a result. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

4) Special proectection for Biographies of living persons - Until such time as a consensus can be reached, the citation should be removed as noted below.

Biographies of living persons - Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

For the previously mentioned reasons, I am removing the citations. I would request that before you re-add them, you try to acheive a conscensus here. The WP:BLP guidelines clear state "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.". Kamujin (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm holding off from making any edits to the article in the meantime because at this point, you're cherrypicking my points and interpreting policy to meet your needs, and I shouldn't get into an edit war (and shouldn't have gotten into one in the first place). But I'll address the specific points you've made:
 * While I didn't make the Mac Observer edit myself so I can't speak for the original editor, but I believe the point of the citation wasn't so much to make any particular point about the accuracy of Enderle's predictions (though I suppose that could be implied), but to point out how often Enderle has predicted Apple's failure, if not demise. Though more importantly, it illustrates that Enderle is target of criticism, deserved or otherwise. And I don't see how you could question the Death Knell Counter's credibility, when it links directly to cited articles. And I have no earthly idea why you quoted the policy on academic journals when we're talking about the validity of an internet site list (which itself is subject to scrutiny from the site's editors and readers).
 * The operative term in the policy you quote is "disproportionate", which is to say, if an article's subject is subject of overwhelming criticism, than it makes sense for criticisms to dominate the article, and conversely, if the subject receives mostly praise, then it doesn't make sense for the article to be negative. But the way the article was before you erased the paragraph about the criticism seemed to be fairly balanced, with his accomplishments and prominence receiving the majority of coverage. And again, if he has his defenders/apologists, then feel free to cite them. Your edits aren't so much eliminating disproportionate criticisms, but whitewashing the article.
 * I do not beleive that WP:NPOV gives a particular editor the right to outsource their WP:NPOV responsibility to another editor. - you clearly misunderstand the policy and the reason for my edits. Criticism against Enderle exists. Those criticism against Enderle come from prominent sources. Again, accurate or not, criticism from notable sources should be in the article. That you referred to Gruber as "a John Doe" suggests that you don't know enough about him to make any judgment about his notability, and your characterizing Gruber's criticisms of Enderle as "personal attacks" tells me you didn't read the cited posts carefully.
 * The Gruber and Death Knell citations were properly sourced. They, in turn, linked to specific Enderle quotes that they criticize. You might not disagree with what they wrote, but they are not libelous, which is what the biography policy attempts to avoid. The policy you cite doesn't apply here. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already addressed your argument in points 1 and 2 of my previous posting. If you are choosing to view the citations as criticism, then it violates WP:BLP by both dominating the article with criticism and by appearing to side with the critics.

Honestly, I am not really a fan of Rob myself. I particularly take exception with his views in the SCO case. That being said, I don't agree with the attempts being made to use this encyclopdia as a forum for flaming. Having read the "Death Knell" site, it does not seem to support its own assertions with its links. As I said before, it is intrinsic to the role of an analyst to discuss both opportunities and pitfall of upcoming decisions, changes, etc. The notion that an analyst would suggest bad things might happen if company X makes a mistake is not surprising or unusual. As you correctly pointed out before, it was not approriate to editorialize about this, but I do think it is appropriate to disqualify this citation as unverifiable without some form of peer review.

WP:NPOV is not about "How close can you get to libel without crossing the line", it's about trying to maintain the quality of this encyclopedia. Telling only his critics side of the story does not forward that goal.

If there is no verifiable documentation of the claims being made in the citations, and you are resolved to see these citation included in some form, then can you write them in a way that doesn't appear to side with the critics thus maintaining WP:NPOV? Clearly the guy didn't build a career around being wrong all the time, can you add some content that shows both sides of the story to give it a less negative dominating bias? Kamujin (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A few things:
 * Again, I can't stress this enough - inserting a critique of the subject by a third party is not POV. In fact, Wikipedia articles are pretty much built on published critics from reliable sources and/or notable observers (well, "built upon" is an exaggeration, but you get the point). It is a verifiable fact that some prominent observers are critical of him. Whether those critiques are valid is up to the reader to judge, and that's where you want to avoid POV.
 * I have a hard time seeing how a single paragraph devoted to criticism constitutes "attempts being made to use this encyclopdia as a forum for flaming" and give it a "negative dominating bias". If you're talking about the occasional vandals who replace "Merchandising" with "Douchebaggery", I should point out (in fact, I have pointed out) that your multiple reverts were reinserting vandalism.
 * WP:NPOV is not about "How close can you get to libel without crossing the line", it's about trying to maintain the quality of this encyclopedia. Telling only his critics side of the story does not forward that goal.
 * No kidding. I never said it was. And quoting Gruber comes nowhere close to libel, not even the same zip code. And the article never ever ever ever ever told only his critics' side of the story.
 * You know, I actually tried to look for defenders of Enderle online, or any kind of blurb praising his foresight or whatever. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. My point is, if the prevailing opinion is that Enderle is a hack, then, fairly or not, that's something that *should* be represented in the article. I *should* try to present a balanced view, but if I can't find people saying nice things about him, that shouldn't prevent me from citing people saying mean things about him.
 * I do think it is appropriate to disqualify this citation as unverifiable without some form of peer review.
 * Um, "peer review" applies to academic journals. When a journalist writes a newspaper article, there is no formal process where other reporters publish reports of the article. As I mentioned above, you're citing an irrelevant policy. You're asking for something that doesn't exist.
 * Clearly the guy didn't build a career around being wrong all the time
 * You'd think so. More to the point, I'm actually curious to see how he gained prominence, whether if he's made some groundbreaking prediction. Because right now, other than his resume, this article is awfully fluffy. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A "study" would have peer review. The 2 citations in question both "pretend" to be some form of research. If they were legitimate research, there would be legitimate peer review. So we are back to them just being critical comments. Again, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would both seem to be violated by an entry that is 80%(roughly?) unsupported critical commentary. Kamujin (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it only took me a few minute to find a kind word about Rob. Maybe your google is broken. http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/28/rob_enderle_2008_s_apple_dell_google_hp_lenovo_sony_microsoft_and_linux/

Forward: by Wolfgang Gruener and Rick C. Hodgin Regular readers of TG Daily will know that Rob Enderle is a frequent contributor to our coverage of the technology industry. You may not always agree with his opinions as we learn from week to week when we are following our readers' comments to Rob's articles. Even we at TG Daily sometimes question points he makes and we occasionally get into heated discussions. But we are very well aware of his background and experience and realize that he is one most knowledgeable general analysts in Silicon Valley today and we learned over the years that there's always a good reason why he has certain opinion.

Often, he does not support the most popular opinion at a time, but his opinion is derived from spending a lot of time with key initiatives in Silicon Valley, which allows him to provide a very different view on current events -- different from what the popular opinion often tries to make us believe. And yes, Rob makes mistakes, as we all do. In these cases, he feels the impact quite painfully, as he sometimes is criticized harshly for the opinion he voices. But some may actually be surprised to learn about Rob's common sense nature and eagerness to learn and analyze the potential impact of a technology trend down to the last detail.

With that being said, TG Daily is very excited to introduce to some, and announce to other's, analyst Rob Enderle and his take on what the landscapes will look like in 2008 for several major technology companies. When you post comments, please bear in mind that Rob is people too. :) Thank you. Kamujin (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is another interesting link from the involving the editor of the "Death Knell" site itself. It doesn't appear to be that hard to find both good and bad things to say about Rob. Hindsight being 20/20, you can't say this guy is always wrong about Apple after you read this article. http://macnewsworld.com/story/macanalysis/33682.html

I think you are right to say that he is controversial enough that his critics deserve mention, but like most case there is another side to the story that can and should be told to keep this article within the worthy standards of WP:NPOV. Kamujin (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Enderle on Linux and SCO
Rob's most famous statements are those which he made in connection to the Linux Operating system and the SCO vs IBM court case. The article states that he has often been a critic of Linux but surely it would be worth qualifying the extent of this criticism, and the many forms it took.

I certainly think it would be worth mentioning the fact the went on the record predicting a victory for SCO group - perhaps his most widely read prediction - which of course turned out to be flat-wrong.

As an analyst, his job and reputation is tied to his ability to 'know which way the wind blows' (to quote Bob Dylan) and then reasonably extrapolate from this. Examples of failure to do so are surely relevant to this most public of analysts. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think he took the wrong side of the arguement in SCO. Additionally, I think Rob really doesn't understand that open source is not a hippy movement. My original and main goal of getting involved with this article was take the side of integrity for wiki articles. There is so much crap on the net. Wiki is an island of sanity in an ocean of flaming. The guy clearly predicted Apple's move from PPC to Intel. "Blind squirel"? Maybe, but tell the whole story if you want to go into that much detail. Kamujin (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. At the time he predicted Apple's switch to Intel many laughed at him. He got that one right, however it was a funny sort of prediction. For example if I predict that one day Apple will use CPUs made my AMD. That might eventually come right in the next few years if neither Apple or AMD go bankrupt. I never put a date on my prediction, and so if the thing I have just forseen happens then I get to take credit for it. :-)

Not everything Rob says is nonsense, however much of what he says is intended to provoke, and with his scattergun approach to making predctions some of them are bound to come true. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Date/year of birth?
It's common practice for a biography to have the date of birth -- although apparently WP:BLP discourages this for some reason. Any hope that this article could at least mention which year he was born in? (I assume it falls from 1940 to 1960, inclusive.) -- llywrch (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

rewrite
In this change, User:Wtil (in his/her first Wikipedia contribution) rewrote this article. The new version has some interesting new information but I think the case needs to made that the information it replaced was unsuitable. I've moved the new text to User:Wtil/Rob Enderle. I suggest that the new information (with proper attribution) be worked into the existing article instead of replacing it wholesale. —Fleminra (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the existing bio to incorporate the new details I had suggested earlier. I had two points to raise with regards to the existing text:

In the sentence, "Rob Enderle predicted Apple's decline, in 2003 ("The biggest long-term problem with moving to an Apple platform is that the company is in decline.". Source: Wired)," if you follow this link, you will see this was included in Wired as noted, but nowhere in that article does it state where this comment came from – it is not sourced in the original article. Should this be deleted as a result?

Also, in the sentence, "His credibility has been publicly called into question on the topic, being charged with claiming to be an independent observer while on the payroll of Toshiba..."[10], all of the leading technology advisory firms have big companies like Toshiba as their clients. That doesn’t mean that the analysts are biased either way in their opinions. I suggest either taking this reference out or highlighting this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtil (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good information there, but your change kind of broke all the formatting of the article. It looks like you copied the text of the web page , pasted it into a word processor, and worked in your additions.  It would be much better if you copied the original source text from here  and work from there.  The reason is that the way you did it, all the previous formatting markup was lost.  Take a look at the text to get a feeling for how the markup works.  —Fleminra (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be better for someone to spend some time to try to both retain Wtil's new content, mark it up appropriately (including lots of tags), and restore the markup from the previous revision, but since no-one is doing it, I've just reverted to the old version so the old old information doesn't get lost forever.  Sorry also to User:208.49.149.90 for losing his/her additions (I was hoping that Wtil would clean up the article quickly).  Please re-add them if you think they're still relevant.  —Fleminra (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am planning to work on it now -- if I can figure it out now that everything has changed again. 72.70.31.135 (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)wtil

Hi: I'm 208.49.149.90. You can call me 90 for short. The information I added in the past week was relevent to evaluating Mr. Enderle's trustworthiness (or lack thereof) in his primary role as an analyst, and all of it was documented. Is there a reason why the page was reverted without restoring the entry? Is one of you editors planning to restore it? Should I try to restore it myself, or am I in violation of some sort of policy? (I am not looking to get into an edit war.)

The top two thirds of the article still read like an advertisement. Can someone other than me (a newbie) clean this up? I do not feel comfortable removing the bulk of a Wikipedia entry (208.49.149.90). I did add some balance in a paragraph on the bottom, but I think the article does not adequately describe Mr. Enderle in his capacity as a controversial, widely quoted and influential, source in the media. The point to bring out is that he is very influential, but is often polemical, partisan, biased, and fails to report conflicts of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.191.40 (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased article - stubbed
I have removed material from that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I rv-ed just because I saw the -article- on recent changes and the removal of large amounts of texts appeared like what people viewing recent changes see from vandals, and the edit summary could have linked to this section of the talk page, or to the BLP noticeboard, to make it clear. I'm not involved in any way.  Feel free to revert, but it seems a shame to remove rather than replace content IMHO, as there are perhaps plenty of sourcs to give an unbiased portrayal, so I hope someone will build the article up again to a good length.:) Sticky Parkin 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I hope so too. But it is better to have a stub until someone can build a NPOV article. The sources are still in the edit history for any rebuilder.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (in response to User:Sticky Parkin): When it comes to most things on Wikipedia, you're right. But when it comes to wp:blp, we have an obligation to remove controversial and poorly sourced statements, as well as content which clearly is not neutral.  Unfortunately, very little of this article, as it stood, met any of those tests.  When it comes to living people, Wikipedia can do harm if we have have poorly sourced derogatory information or if we place wp:undue weight on certain facts or situations.  When this happens, we must remove the problematic content immediately, and then work on reincluding neutral, sourced, and verifiable material.    user:j    (aka justen)   00:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected - BLP Note
I have unprotected the article after consultation with the protecting admin. Please do not revert to the previous revision. Instead work from the stub to build a proper article in full compliance with BLP. BLP will be enforced to the letter. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Article reconstruction
The article now says that he's a "consultant, writer, and widely quoted technical and legal analyst." So, would it be fair for this article to try to summarize: It seems to me that an analyst's conclusions are "notable" when they demonstrate extraordinary (correct) insight when compared to his/her peers; and conversely, an *established* analyst's conclusions become notable when they turn out to be incorrect, especially when such conclusions run contrary to the prevailing attitudes among one's peers. Examples: Is any of this in dispute? —Fleminra (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * with whom he has consulted (done, but not referenced),
 * what writers/publications have quoted him,
 * what he has written, and
 * what his notable technical and legal analytical conclusions have been?
 * predicting that Apple would adopt Intel CPUs (though at the time he wrote that this position was "the consensus" so maybe this conclusion was not all that extraordinary)
 * supporting SCO's lawsuits
 * predicting that HD DVD would defeat Blu-Ray


 * I think (IANAL) it would be reasonable to do that. With the article stubbed down to his current state, he looks barely notable.


 * In doing this we should be aware of the distinction between "supporting SCO's lawsuits" and "predicting SCO's success". 216.239.45.19 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

new article
Based on the feedback I read, I wrote a new, neutral article with information I could find online (before seeing the last Talk entry above). I can see the references are not reading correctly and will try to fix that. Wtil (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)wtil

Wow. This *really* is a terrible article
This is hideous.

There is a brief summary, and straight into the criticism, which is hilariously bad, and misses the key point that made him famous, the SCO controversy and his role in it.

This guy is a gobshite - there must be millions of links to things he says and does. A "views" section is certainly appropriate, as well as some history to them - what he was involved in, and when.

There is no feeling at all for what the guy is about, or what he thinks, or what he has been involved in in the past.

A travesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.132 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)