Talk:Paul Graham (programmer): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:04, 20 March 2024

Latest revision as of 22:30, 24 January 2025

(7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=No|blp=Yes|class=C|listas=Graham, Paul|1=

{{WikiProject Biography}}

{{WikiProject Business|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Low|software=Yes|software-importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Dorset|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low|Cornell=Yes|Cornell-importance=Low}}

}}

{{Notable Wikipedian|Bugbear|Graham, Paul}}

Line 37:

:: 1) The threshold for simply including a given topic in an article is not as high as [[WP:N]]'s threshold, which is for said topic to have its own article.

:: 2) Not everything about a subject has to be about the main thing(s) for which the subject is notable if we have RS. (Guardian alone establishes this)

:: 3) That said, since the concern is notability, here's another source: [https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue/ How to disagree well: 7 of the best and worst ways to argue], from [[Big Think]] (which [[Media Bias/Fact Check]], FWIW, gives the highest possible rating. [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/big-think/]).  IMO that (and the rest) are sufficient RS for our purposes.

Line 43:

::4) And [[WP:IAR|not for nothing]], having it here helps both readers and editors, thereby making for a better Wikipedia.

:Thus I '''!vote to include section''', adding Big Think RS. Perhaps though, per [[WP:UNDUE]], the section could be pruned. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ^{[[User:Middle 8/Privacy|privacy]]} • _{([[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|s]])[[User talk:Middle 8|talk]]} 0506:0445, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

::The section comes off as as a bit out of his element, and when performing a cursory Google search, most mentions are either from his own webpage or blogs specifically quoting the wiki page (though these seem to have been from as early as 2017, so it's possible the original author pulled the info from those blogs). The diagram showing up in a Wikipedia policy pages, as pointed out by [[User:PhotographyEdits]], isn't enough for it to warrant more than a small blurb, certainly not a third of the article's word count.

::To your third point: interestingly, the [[Media Bias/Fact Check]] website you point to is classified by Wikipedia as a generally unreliable source.

::And to your forth: this point is addressed in the very Wikipedia Page mentioned above [[WP:USEFUL]] <span style="font-family: Courier; background-color: black; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:Lindsey40186|<span style="color: white"><b>Lindsey40186</b></span>]] [[User talk:Lindsey40186|<span style="color: white">(talk)</span>]]</span> 20:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

:::Agree, this isn't exactly a big hitter on Google, but the threshold here isn't [[WP:SIRS]]. Google certainly turns up a good few articles and discussions, and some of those lead to this page, so the content in debate is already referenced a lot. A section heading doesn't need to have notability in its own right, as made clear in [[WP:NNC]]. There appears to be no issue of correctness. So we're left with considerations of [[WP:UNDUE]]: at the time of writing, there are under 160 words on Grahams Hierarchy (+ those in the diagram), in an article under 1200 words (excluding refs) so it's about 13% of the text content, which seems plausible. Given all that, '''!vote to retain section'''. I [[User:Chumpih|<span style="text-shadow: 2px 2.5px 3px #448811bb">Chumpih</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Chumpih|t]]} 04:07, 07:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

::::In my view this is a self-promotional article, backed by self-promotional, personal website with a completely subjective taxonomy not backed by even single source from argumentation theory, conversation analysis, nor discourse analysis.

::::An example of name calling - I would suspect, written by the author - is "The author is a self-important dilettante". But let's be honest, isn't he?

::::Can someone explain why this taxonomy is even a pyramid? Maslow's justified the shape such higher levels of needs become motivating for humans after the lower levels are satisfied. Without any theoretical justification, this is just a self-promotional sham branded by it's own name. [[User:Okaminski|Okaminski]] ([[User talk:Okaminski|talk]]) 18:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm slightly struggling to parse some of the grammar in that comment, but as an argument it appears to be motivated by ironic levels of ad hominem and name calling. I agree with [[User:Chumpih|Chumpih]]. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 22:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

== "[[:Paul Graham (computer programmer]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==