Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Klavan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I did receive permission to use pieces of Mr. Klavan's website, and it was also re-written and not copied verbatim. Please let me know how to proceed with this.

Timsteeleworks (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to use other material on Wikipedia, there must be a notice on the other page that licences its work under GFDL. Or you need to get permission from the copyright holder that is then sent to Wikimedia. It's all explained here: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Or — and this tends to be the easier route — re-write the article in your own words. ... discospinster talk 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. And I re-wrote the article, but I then got a second notice. If one compares the source material and what I wrote, it pretty clearly shows that it was written in my own words. If there is a part of the article that looks too close, I'd be happy to re-write it. Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timsteeleworks (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the entire article isn't a bust 'cuz of the copyvio. Parts are, sure, but I'm about to go work on 'em. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done what I can. If it's still an issue remove the whole section and then oversight or otherwise get rid of the old edits (delete and restore, methinks). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with the edits, although I would make mention of the book "True Crime" in the London section, since it was one of two works that were made into motion pictures (this one a Clint Eastwood flick). I also will add references and possibly some expansion to deal with the "peacock terms." Thanks. Timsteeleworks (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references and fleshed out some content, adding what I thought to be important facts. Can be deleted if necessary. Let me know what needs to be done to remove the concern tags. Timsteeleworks (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CITE so that you will understand how references need to be formatted in Wikipedia. The "references" as provided are not at all satisfactory. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable "permission" has been archived on OTRS, ticket 2008032510019548; it doesnt grant GFDL, however I dont see any reason to pursue the matter further as the copyright issue has been already resolved. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I read through WP:CITE and tried to make some changes. Are they correct? Not sure. Timsteeleworks (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I'll go format 'em. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other improvements

[edit]

Any more tips on what I can do so that I can eliminate the tags on the top of the page? Timsteeleworks (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken down the wikify and peacock terms tags. It's been wikified pretty well, and I can't see any peacock terms anywhere in the text. I'd like to check out the exact wording of critera at WP:BIO before I remove the notability tag, but I'll go do that now. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO doesn't say anything useful, but it certainly seems like the guy's plenty notable if he's written so many books and three movies with WP articles. Sourcing could be better, but sourcing can always be better. You might also want to create some stubs about some of his other books, if they pass WP:BK. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I was considering doing that. Thank you! Timsteeleworks (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues

[edit]

Zen87 (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the biography section of this article for a POV check due to the following section:

"More recently he compared the moral issues associated with the Bush administrations foreign policy to the issues Batman faced in The Dark Knight [1]. Many people have responded to this statement with negative feelings because of far left-ist political views, one of the most recurring arguments is that Bush went on vacation right after declaring war on Iraq and some believe he attempted to keep his actions from the press."

The statement "Many people have responded to this statement with negative feelings because of far left-ist political views" indicates a lack of impartiality in tone. It implies that all negative feelings expressed in regards to the opinion piece come from a "far left-ist" point of view, automatically defining all extant negative view of the piece extant as "far left-ist". Without defining specifically what far left-ist means and showing how all extant negative opinions of the piece display a far left-ist viewpoint, this statement shows a definite bias. The statement "because of far left-ist political views" should be removed from the Biography section of this article.

I have removed the POV tag (I copyedited the article, but not in any meaningful way involving POV text) because I no longer see any POV issues with it. YLee (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this relevant?

[edit]

He has never served in the military.

Why is the above passage relevant? I'm removing it if no one protests with a logical argument.PokeHomsar (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andrew Klavan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Klavan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Klavan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Auto Biographies"?

[edit]

Why is the header for the author's list of novels "Auto Biographies"? I am not familiar with the novels so do not feel competent to edit the header, but it does not make sense to someone (like me) coming to the article to learn about the author. Perhaps someone more familiar with the books could refine this? Judd (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Tweet

[edit]

Why is this relevant? It is a one sentence blurb. There are no reactions to it described. There is no reason given why this tweet alone has been chosen as an addition to the article. Judging from the twitter analytics of the post (feel free to run the numbers for yourselves https://socialbearing.com/), there are literally millions of tweets that could be plugged into biographies on the grounds "well, they tweeted it!" (See: Wikipedia:But it's true!). There is a questionable revert history geared towards retaining this section. Consider WP:BARE, WP:Insignificant, WP:CCS, and given the "coincidence" of the tweet being about politics, consider WP:Axe-grinding. If there is no legitimate rationale offered about both the inclusion of this blurb and its revert history, I'm removing it. Scriblerian1 (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a tweet that advocates genocide is worthy of a mention. It's not a run of the mill tweet; it advocates wiping out an entire nation. It is relevant because it gives insight into how Klavan thinks about these issues. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if this is the standard we are going by for defining "advocating genocide" or for what is worthy and relevant enough to be considered a window into someone's mind, then that is a complete about-face on what kind of social media content has been acceptable for inclusion on other biographies, or even in regular articles making reference to other people. This does not offer any rationale for the above issues. If the only explanation for retaining it continues to be the "this calls for genocide" line, I am removing it, and we'll let an administrator sort it out. Scriblerian1 (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you about WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's not just social media. He has talked about it elsewhere (happy to add that as well). Please wait for other editors to weigh in beofre removing it. That is what gaining consensus is about. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the absurdly short length of the section is grounds in itself for removal, additional content won't save the section unless it addresses the aforementioned issues. The history for this article shows this has been going back and forth for quite awhile before I weighed in, so take that as you will regarding consensus. Scriblerian1 (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the radio show to give the issue more context. As to the "going back and forth", there has been an element of whitewashing. We need to look at what established editors think, not one-time IP editors. The history of this article shows that there is consensus amongst established editors that this section should remain. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lard Almighty. The tweet is clearly advocating for genocide and is consistent / aligned with Klavan's well-known anti-Iran views (albeit, not as extreme and/or genocidal) published elsewhere (e.g., his show). This is also clear from responses made to this tweet and Klavan's "I-was-joking!" statement that followed (after his tweet was reported to / flagged by Twitter). I also see clear elements of whitewashing in waves of IP edits/vandalism.Sisyphus4ever (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment earlier on, "I think that a tweet that advocates genocide is worthy of a mention" is telling: it shouldn't be up to editors to make that kind of decision. Secondary sources should report on something before one of us thinks it's worth mentioning. Primary sourcing is acceptable for verifying basic facts, but primary sources should not be used to verify (and justify) the inclusion of content that is not otherwise considered noteworthy by secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drmies, You need to respect the consensus (see above). Of course, you are more than welcome to start a respectful conversation here in the TP - but it is disrespectful and ignorant to engage in WP:DIS right away. This person's tweet is objectively controversial and drew a backlash in twitter (see the responses on twitter) and was covered by TYT.com. To sum up, the content is objectively controversial and important (thus should be included in any BLP) and, additionally, the primary source (link to the tweet) provides both the facts and justification (evident from the number of responses, his "I was joking" statement afterwards, etc). Note that I am specifically referring to the part of article that covers the infamous tweet and not his other views on Iran. While we discuss this issue in the TP with other editors to reach a resolution, I ask you to revert your changes and respect the existing consensus.
  • Muboshgu, ST47, Lard Almighty Sisyphus4ever (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. This is a BLP, and your claim of "bullying" rings a bit hollow. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You cannot simply ignore the consensus reached amongst "established editors". You have edited the article without engaging in a respectful dialogue to ensure compliance with BLP rules (your first post in TP was made after your WP:DIS attempts). This behavior would not be accepted from other editors and is clearly against WP rules. You are misusing your admin rights to bully other junior editors. Sisyphus4ever (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but in a BLP secondary sourcing is pretty much a given, as any "established editor" will know--but then you also claim that these established editors are junior editors at the same time? And there is hardly a consensus here to begin with: there's you and there's one other editor, and the history shows your edits have been reverted by Volunteer Marek (81,000 edits) and by Snooganssnoogans (28,000 edits), and criticized by Scriblerian1 here.

          Now, your comments about what is and isn't acceptable, and how I am abusing my rights: you have maybe three dozen edits here, so I can forgive you for not knowing what all is and isn't acceptable, but I'll tell you that having an account whose sole purpose is to introduce improperly sourced negative content in a BLP is not acceptable. If you think I am abusing my position, by all means take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI, but be prepared to be criticized as a single-purpose account who doesn't care about the rules. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

          • You are correct- there is no consensus. Laird Almighty has consistently engaged in Wikipedia:AXE over this issue, and thoroughly abused the article. I'd submit a request for arbitration, but I don't have a firm enough grasp of the process to confidently monitor it against shady actions from partisan actors like Laird. Regarding the lack of consensus, if anything, it seems the opposition to the inclusion of this partisan and inflammatory content outweighs the one-man show behind keeping it at all costs. Scriblerian1 (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually it's Sisyphus4ever who has been engaging in WP:AXE. I actually don't have a horse in this race. What I was trying to do was improve the article, finding other sources etc. My view was that since this material kept being re-added it should be as encyclopaedic as possible. I do believe that it is relevant. He's frankly not notable enough that major WP:RS would have picked up on these comments, but he did make them and they can be sourced back to the primary source and a few others, so there is no WP:BLP issue as long as they are presented in a neutral way without WP:UNDUE. That is what I was aiming for, trying to balance the WP:AXE on one side and the attempts at whitewashing on the other. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccination tweet

[edit]

The linked tweet does not literally say that Klavan is vaccinated against Covid, although that was probably implied. I think a better source would have to be found.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Klavan&oldid=1258750491"