Jump to content

Talk:James Orlin Grabbe

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

May 2008 to December 2008 commentary

[edit]

Only the initial and basic skeleton, so far, having just found out that he had passed away. More is coming, as well as references. Since his homepage at www.aci.net/kalliste is now gone, a lot of his writings are now only available via Google and the Wayback archive. If anyone has a more substantial collection of JOG's writings, info about that would be beneficial not only for this article but to many of his fans. XJDR (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got a picture of JOG that can be used here? There was a decent image at http://www.aci.net/kalliste/corp_risk_mgm.jpg but it's gone now, with the rest of the contents... (XJDR (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Uploaded now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orlin_Grabbe_1990.jpg 123privacy (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will help with the rest of the article, have extensive archives. Please bear with me. 123privacy (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but I think you edited a slightly dated version. I had corrected some things that now got lost. I'll wait a while before I add back some fixes to typos. The section leading to 60 minutes is gone too. I felt that this ought to be mentioned, including JOG's writings about controversial current events. Whatever one might think of them, they did have a significant enough impact. Even 60 minutes agrees with that... Also, the 'Tim Osman' article has been widely cited and referenced to, even in MSM. Probably needs a mention. Cheers, XJDR (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please double check the history - I didn't remove anything, just retitled the sections and added some items. 123privacy (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further examination you are quite correct. My revision of 05:31, 4 June 2008 differs from your earlier one of 11:11, 3 June 2008. Not quite sure why that is. If you don't manage to get to it in the next 24hrs or so I'll carefully go through and put back in what I removed accidentally. Thanks for your patience. 123privacy (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I have now re-synced. I also took the liberty of doing some further edits... I feel a bit hampered by the loss of his homepage, with so many docs that could be linked and referred to. I'll look around to see if there is some site emerging as THE archive, Meanwhile, I look forward to your further input. XJDR (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found what seems to be a good archive / mirror / last-minute-snapshot at Bill St.Clair's website. If one can rely on it being there for a long time then that might be a good place to link to for references to some of Orlin's writings. XJDR (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the owner of billstclair.com. I intend to indefinitely maintain my mirror of Mr. Grabbe's web site, and I encourage links from Wikipedia and everywhere else. I do not have anyone's permission for my mirror, however, so if someone convinces me that they have rightful ownership of copyright to his writings, and threatens legal action unless I remove my mirror, I will. BillStClair (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What more could anyone wish for? Much obliged! (There is of course web.archive.org, but this is more convenient) XJDR (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NEWS! The control of the domain www.orlingrabbe.com has been acquired by a group interested in preserving the works of Orlin Grabbe and the spirit in which the site was maintained by him. I have been told that they are making arrangements with his family as well, so there should be no 'legal' problems. I will use that address in the article since that would make all links come out the right way. Should there ever be a problem with this then Bill St.Clair's mirror can and will be used as a fallback resource for this article. All bets are thus hedged. XJDR (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that the section about Chaos... is to summarize his use of his homepage, both as a collection of news and views, but most definitely as a place to hold his own writings. Among all the many other good texts, the unfinished series about fractals and financial markets is a real gem, well worthy of preservation and further spread. XJDR (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any other prospective editor: I still have the section about Chaos to write, but as for the rest of the article I consider myself essentially done, at least for now. I have more or less reached the goal I set up for myself. I'm sure there are some 't' or another having its dot missing, some language to tweak/add/delete as well as additional references to add, but I will keep away from the other subsections for at least a week. Becoming blind to ones own text is way too easy. Fresh eyes see clearer. If nothing has happened to the article when I have added the 'Chaos' section I intend to remove the 'Under Construction' tag and declare it all done. XJDR (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. For now. OK, I have not assigned any Categories to the article, but that will happen soon, I'm sure. Should anyone want to give me comments in private, just send an email via the Wikipedia email system. Just go to my user page. I do not check such emails daily, but I will respond, even to messages containing nothing but an email address and a PGP key. XJDR (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am tweaking links and references even though not a week has passed. Thanks for pointers. XJDR (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death

[edit]

Gentlemen, would you kindly cite some kind of documentary evidence that Orlin is dead. Slightly skeptical (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, mate. Not only does this article need some serious outside, unoriginal resource material, it needs the presentation of much less praise-worthy commentary and more critical anaylsis. For example, Grabbe's writings on Tim Osman, Michael Riconosciuto, Fostergate, Charles Hayes, The Fifth Column,...etcetera teeter-totter on a very fine line between truth and fiction. If Mr. Grabbe is really dead, then I believe either a mainstream news obituary or a reliable certification of death is in order. I added a few templates to various Wikipedia Project listings (which may draw upon interested parties), and assessed this article as a STUB of LOW importance. ThsQ (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical, you are either seriously Google-impaired or actually kidding, hinting that the death notice on aci.net/kalliste was a fake, or that Orlin's brother Crockett did not notice the mention of Orlin's death while he participated in editing this wiki article (check the wiki edit log)? Or perhaps that Crockett lied when he wrote a post about Orlin's death on the net? chasegalleryconnect.org/FNC_C/Data/People/Individuals/J. Orlin Grabbe.html Or members of his (former) church? [1] I got informed of the death directly from his friends and family. You could of course get in touch with the U.S. embassy in San Jose, Costa Rica if that is not good enough for you. They don't publish death notices on the net, as far as I know.

Or perhaps, more likely, you are connected to that shady German speaking group (I will not encourage them by giving a URL) that threatened repeatedly on the net to have Orlin maimed/murdered? If you think that such a threat would be taken seriously by anyone, especially by Orlin himself and to be a reason for such a delayed and elaborate hoax then you must definitely be kidding. Yourself. As an attempt at humour it is as dead as Orlin is. XJDR (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a death notice in "The Journal" of the Churches of God, of which Mr. Grabbe was a former member. Added the citation. BillStClair (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death? Beaten to death is the Tico way. Heart attack smells like OGA. Tes5ymjuog878f6 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the A stand for, Test5? Hoax is spelt with a X?
"There was one obvious recurring underlying theme in Orlin Grabbe's works: Chaos. The study of chaotic disorder in the form of noise..." --from Wikipedia: James Orlin Grabbe
JiggleJog (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The previously uploaded picture of Orlin Grabbe has been removed. I assume it could be due to copyright issues. Even though I did not upload the image file, I did recommend it as a good likeness that captured the spirit of Orlin Grabbe and matched the tone of the article. It is a good image regarding its composition as well. I will get in touch with Risk Management Magazine to see if any copyright issues can be resolved that way. That might take some time... XJDR (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit official approval to use the current image has been given by Farid A. Naib, co-president of FX Systems Inc. when the picture was taken, now CEO of GL Trade Capital Markets Solutions. (XJDR (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Requested: Underconstruction

[edit]

On December 6, due to the lack of citations, and etceteras, I found it necessary to replace the {{underconstruction}} banner upon James Orlin Grabbe. Within a day or two, I will request that the article be returned to XJDR's Userspace (proposed url: XJDR/James Orlin Grabbe) in order for XJDR to address the numerous issues cited to date. I am open to discussion (below) on this issue. My intention should in no way be misinterpreted as a value judgment on anything other than the need to address the various issues cited to date regarding referencing and "voice" (biased tone). Note: In the course of editing the "edit box", it occurred to me that XJDR used a word-processing text-editor which was incompatible with the Wikipedia text-editor. This incompatibility probably is the cause of the "dead links"; however I do not have time to pursue the matter. ThsQ (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThsQ. I have just received a message: "Someone is trying to deep-six the Wiki article about JOG", so I checked in and looked around. Sure, you state that you will request what in practical terms would be a removal. In the circles that I entertain, such a behaviour, without even bothering to inform the main author, is not considered to be a friendly and polite act, but more an act of covert warfare. You did not have the time to look at my user page, did you? I dislike the method but acknowledge your right to be critical. I do not own the text, nor am I emotionally attached to it, so constructive criticism and modifications are of course not only acceptable but definitely welcomed. Classifying the text "a stub" is a bit over the top, don't you think? Well, anyone can edit the text on Wikipedia, did you know that? Even you can do so. And, Google is your friend too.
Assuming your basic good intent, which is in fact what I do, I have no problems with the requests for further references, so I will add some more in the relatively near future. I am seriously occupied with the Real World, so do not expect immediate actions. The article has survived six months without comments, and several external sites are linking to it as a base reference, so I feel confident that allowing decent time for a non-rushed (and thus higher quality) update is in accordance with Wiki principles. Threats of a sudden removal, and even more an actual removal, would raise some eyebrows without gaining much else but bad-will.
Lastly (for now): You complain about the "voice". I assume that some of your basis for this could be what you perceive as lacking basis/references for some of the statements, is that correct? Otherwise I would not mind if you showed me more clearly what you mean. I suggest that such a discussion would take place on this page and not in the form of "edit warfare". I will add links directly on the article page though, but intend to log them here as well. XJDR (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ThsQ, I noticed in the "Death" section above that you expressed specific opinions about some of Orlin's investigative writings, (teeter-totter on the fine line between fact and fantasy). I personally do not care if what he wrote is true or not, and I did explicitly try to keep such direct evaluations out of the text. I fail to see any reason for adding more about those items to the article than what is there already. It states that he wrote such articles, that they were noticed, as well as being countered by some as flaky conspiracy fantasies. In my opinion that is enough for Wikipedia, since it should not be used as a platform for making value judgments such as you did above. If some, you included, have additional problems or agendas regarding Orlin's writings then there are blogs and the rest of the web to use for such discussions. Wikipedia is not the place.

I have been informed that his family have made arrangements with archivists for safe handling and preservation of the very voluminous research and background material Orlin had collected for each article, just in case it would "get lost" or "accidentally destroyed". It is my understanding that serious (and vetted) researchers are planned to be given access to peruse those archives. As for me; I'm not interested enough, but I do maintain the stance that main stream media and the like should be presumed guilty and not trustworthy until explicitly proven innocent. Caveat lector, indeed. XJDR (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XJDR, mate, you have completely misread both my intent and Skeptical's note. Neither of us implied any reason for your ire. If you will note, each separate citation-request (noted in the main body by specific indentification marking i.e. [verification needed]) is a polite notice on the part of a reader that the author of the article has not supplied adequate sources for the many claims made throughout. Moreover, the author has a tendency to write in laudatory, praise-worthy language which closely resembles the "voice" of a "fan" rather than an objective reporter of a "neutral point of view". Lastly, you apparently have failed to understand what I wrote regarding the "underconstruction" procedure. It is not (nor never was) anyone's desire to broach the subject of removal. My intention was (and is) for the primary editor to return his manuscript back into his own userspace BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE COMES ALONG and decides that the primary's Namespace article is so tilted into the areas of "weasal words" and "peacock phrases" and "lack of reliable sources" that the article should be deleted. The quickest way to avoid a deletion by any of the multitudes of technical rabble who frequent the background of Wikipedia is to return this article into Userspace where few people will annoy you. The problems in this article are plentiful. Whether you wish to deal with them now or wish ten years from now is your business. Returning the article into Userspace (see the suggested url above and add it to your article using the MOVE TAB at the top of the page) is a simple procedure. If you do not wish to do that, but instead wish to argue, and wish to suggest that your critics are plotters against you, then someone will come along and point out the necessity for civility. I could move it for you; someone else also could perform this procedure. However, the placement of all my notices above was to get your attention for you to do this yourself, and for you to deal with your previous editorial additions to this article which began in May 2008 [2]. ThsQ (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is true what you say that reading more than was intended into words written by others can be easy, especially in on-line conversations. Resulting flames are common but seldom fruitful. Let me restate that I was completely serious above when I welcomed your additions in the form of ref requests. I assume that this can be seen by the subsequent activities from me (and to my delight also from Bill StClair). As I said, I will not have the time to handle all in one go, but as can be seen the process is well on its way. A few more iterations should do it. My other request from you was assisting in handling what you refer to as a peacock/weasel/fan style of writing. Part of that could be influences from my own writing style (I do not write encyclopedias for a living) and part is due to attempts to summarize the original texts, where that style will leak back into the summaries. Editing someone else's text than one's own text is easier (which is why authors have editors), so, again, if you could assist by re-writing some part, then that would actually assist me in going on from there. XJDR (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Later on, as assistant professor in economics at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, Orlin Grabbe found a lack of educational material for the emerging field of international finance and [for?] the increased trading in financial derivatives that this [vague] (this what? this lack, this void, this what?) created. [Incidentally, this entire sentence is confusing because of its construction.] For this purpose, in 1986 he wrote the book International Financial Markets. In a 2nd edition (1991), and in the context of the eurocurrency markets, he introduced the term "regulatory arbitrage". One of his students, Andrew Krieger, later became a (formidable, not legendary. There is no reference to Krieger being legendary in the context of a primary definition for the word legend, thus this use of "loaded-adjective phrasing" is an example of "peacock phrasing") trader for Bankers Trust FX and the author of the The Money Bazaar."
Other examples would be: "well-cited contributions", "known separately and widely", "great academic prowess", "widely-quoted essay".
I believe you either need to restrain yourself from praising your subject too much, or cite clear reference-sources for the claims which you make. In the case of the latter, the New York Times article merely calls Krieger formidable, not legendary.
It is not my intent to remove your intent; it is merely to draw your attention to "overly aggressive and flowery language which can not be verified by any of your primary sources" so far. I think you need to "tone it down a goodly amount", or back it up much better. That's all, mate. I am not here to pass judgment. I am just a reader who can easily see that you are impressed greatly by your subject. But rather than tell me how wonderful Mr. Grabbe's achievements are, show me.
You will notice also that I removed your google referencing because Wikipedia is pretty clear in its explanation of how to reference material properly, and google referencing does not qualify. If I told you all the above, and you said "Oh yea? Who said so?" and I said, "It's all here. Go look it up for yourself." I think you would say what some of your readers might say when they run across your references to go... "google referencing". :p
Oh...and there is no hurry here, mate. Take your time. ThsQ (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This is where notes to updates to the set of links and references will be made. Some requests added recently will be deleted/ignored, with appropriate comments here. XJDR (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro: Bill StClair found a good death notice and added it. If fact, that link could also be used in later sections as a reference for the PhD link request, the student magazine editor link request and the claim of wide spread of "Memories of Pasadena". This section is now all handled. XJDR (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life: Link to description of education as a youth added. The request for links regarding the professorships of the brothers was clearly spurious, since their names were already linked to their respective universities. Modified text to make it even clearer. This section is now all handled. XJDR (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador College: Referring to the obituary included by Bill StClair handles previous link requests, even though a ready-made Google search for "Memories of Pasadena"+grabbe could be added as well. I consider this section now to be all handled. XJDR (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley, Harvard and Wharton: All reference requests handled, even though there is a suggestion to "google" for the book International Financial Markets since making a meaningful selection of universities that have that book as course material is a somewhat futile excercise IMHO. Section done, I think. XJDR (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may find reading WP:VERIFY beneficial. Finding relevant supporting documentation from Harvard Business and/or Wharton School of Business would be adequate. Your following point of view is an unacceptable position to maintain: "...a highly-acclaimed book according to a summary[2] of endorsements by academics and citations in books by other authors. The book is still being used world-wide as a reference in the education of students and practitioners of such trading, as seen by "googling" International+financial+markets+grabbe." Wikipedia does not accept "third-party endorsement", nor should you direct your readers to find references on their own. In addition, referring to other editors' efforts to assist you as "spurious" and "google-impaired" is considered extremely rude; and, as another editor has suggested, you may find reading WP:CIVILITY worthwhile. You really do not need to answer me because I will not be back. I do not feel that you are very friendly, nor interested in working with others. Hag2 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The End of...and 60 Minutes

[edit]

XJDR, By the time you read what I am writing right now, you will have seen probably how I reacted to the subsection: "The End..." etcetera. Your point of view is extremely heavy in this section, lopsided. Words such as "highly" this and "widely" that need to be supported by third-party, unbiased references. It is only by the time that Leslie Stahl's opinion is presented (somewhat) that we readers encounter a balance. Yet then, you suggest that Stahl's opinion is (was) "received with some amusement". Yet you do not cite a critical third-party criticism; you agree with the critics (i.e. your choice of the word amusement is a loaded expression): Salon.com is a blog (according to Wikipedia's guidelines) blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources; Don Cox (from the Reno Gazette) does carry some weight, however a google search of his offerings suggest that he has had only a 100 or so publications so he falls into a novice opinion category much like the blog writer above; and Grabbe's opinion can hardly be said to be unbiased. After thrashing Stahl's opinion, I believe you need some heavier ammunition than what you cite. The entire subsection ("The End...") needs to be addressed by you from a more balanced point of view. I tried to copy-edit as much of the viewpoint writing as I could, and I believe you may benefit by analyizing my opinion rather than resisting it. ThsQ (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As orlingrabbe.com is down consequent to his passing, I have updated some of the dead links to point to an archive on my site. Kent Heiner (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Orlin Grabbe. 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 02:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on James Orlin Grabbe. 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) 10:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Orlin_Grabbe&oldid=1207368298"