Content deleted Content added
→Removal of diagram: new section |
|||
Line 26:
:yeah, it's basically fan posting. Graham is notable, but that doesn't mean blog posts of no particular real-world impact should be in the article - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
== Removal of diagram ==
Hello, I wanted you to know that I restored Graham's ''Hierarchy of Disagreement'' to his biography. You noted in your edit summary that blogs and newsletters are not reliable sources, which is generally true. However I think you may have been too hasty and literal in this case. 1) The "blog" cited is under control of the subject himself and 2) the newsletter cited is a ''Wikipedia'' newsletter explaining how ''Wikipedia'' uses his Hierarchy. I have also added a source from ''The Guardian''. When it comes to [[WP:GUNREL]] sources we can use them provided, "...The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable." Given these arguments I'm not seeing where the sourcing is so deficient as to warrant removal.
<br>Given some admin's using Graham's Hierarchy to set discussion tone (see [[User talk:Beeblebrox]]) it would be a shame to keep this out. If you still disagree I suggest that we start a discussion on the Paul Graham talk page and invite other editors to join in. Best regards, <span style="color: blue">[[User:Blue Riband|Blue]] [[User talk:Blue Riband|Riband►]]</span> 01:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
:I think Paul Graham is an established expert on programming, but psychology stuff? I think it's fine to use the diagram in a Wikipedia policy page, but not in his biography. The Guardian source is a bit small to make it warrant an entire section. I am still in favor of removing it here. [[User:PhotographyEdits|PhotographyEdits]] ([[User talk:PhotographyEdits#top|talk]]) 17:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||