Jump to content

Talk:Mark Riebling

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

Deleting Interpolation by IP 108.27.82.232

[edit]

IP 108.27.82.232 interpolated that Rieblng is "Trotskyite neoconservative" but provided no citation. Further, Riebling's writings (unlike, say, those of Christopher Hitchens) do not support that chracterization. In his "Notes Toward a Critique of Conservative Reason," for instance, Riebling takes issue with the foundations of conservatism generally, and of Straussian neo-conservatism especially. If Riebling's politics are nevertheless judged germane to his biography, one could say that he has published in right-leaning publications; but also that he has published in left-leaning publications including The Guardian (London). In any case, do not see any useful encylopedic purpose in speculating on Riebling's politics in absence of evidence. Timoleon212 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Timoleon212Timoleon212 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it must be rather difficult to talk about yourself in the third person, no?Polemicist2 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length and detail

[edit]

The article appears to dwell extensively on the subject's views, which mostly appear to be self-published. Rather than detailing them here, perhaps just linking to his blog would be sufficient. The only views we should go into are those that are notable enough to have been mentioned in reliable 3rd-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article surely does not read like an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.10.145 (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concerns above have been addressed in edits -- I see only two references to his blog posts and the rest are to published 3rd-party sources. Probably some of the detail of his views could be condensed further, however, this does not read like a resume. It includes criticism of his work, etc.Timoleon212 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drmies, your edits have improved the entry to be sure. Suggest the following could be restored for the following reasons:

-- Influence -- suggest the paragraph is stronger with reference to President’s decision to close “seam” between foreign and domestic surveillance. Saying instead that subject is frequently cited in U.S. media seems to me make the page more like a resume rather than less.

-- Warrantless surveillance controversy. Suggest this meets the criteria for noteworthiness. At one point the entry cited four or five law review articles cited discussing the subject’s views on in connection with debate about Title II of the USA Patriot Act. Further, if the controversy is worth mentioning, it may be helpful to explain to readers how it ended (with the supreme court decision upholding warrantless surveillance) rather than leave it hang.

-- Personal responsibility at the founding. Suggest the few sentences as originally written met the criteria for noteworthiness. More than 450 web pages link to this essay from a reputable printed magazine in which subject of entry corrected an entry in the Oxford English dictionary.

  • If secondary sources prove the topic's notability, then I have no problem with it. But as I explained in (many) edit summaries, there were only primary sources here. No secondary sources, no notability--that's the rule. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timoleon212 (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Timoleon212[reply]

Additionally...

Suggest that in External Links, links to select discussions of subject's work may be more relevant than link to subject's website.

  • It seems that about a third of the original links, in the various sections, were to the subject's own blog, which had transcripts of NPR interviews etc. I think you are overstating the case--for "discussions of subject's work," I read "mentions of subject." Discussions on Wikipedia usually means in-depth discussions, and I did not see any of those. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timoleon212 (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Timoleon212[reply]

Drmies - good work on getting the article back into shape.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]

From the article page, where it shouldn't be:

By Mark Riebling

Drmies (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, many (perhaps most) other articles on Authors contain bibliographies, so I'm unsure why one is out of place here. Perhaps it is too long, but that is another point. Timoleon212 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Timoleon212Timoleon212 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Background and Family Life

[edit]

Mark Riebling is a descendant of the colonial explorer Stephen Holston, who in 1746 followed what is now the Holston River by canoe from Virginia to Mississippi as far as Natchez.[1] His father, Robert. W. Riebling, served as a senior engineer in the Liquid Propulsion Section at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and worked on on the NASA Surveyor Program, which on June 1, 1966, landed the first U.S. spacecraft on the moon.[2] Riebling's friends include Neil Peart, drummer and lyricist of the rock group Rush, who mentions Riebling in his books Traveling Music: The Soundtrack of My Life and Times and Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road.[3]

References

  1. ^ Douglas Summers Brown, "Stephen Holston – Frontiersman, Adventurer, Revolutionary Soldier, Discoverer of the Holston-Tennessee River." Historical Society of Washington County, VA. Bulletin, Series II, No 27, 1990, excerpted by Stephen Holston Chapter, Tennessee State Society Sons of the American Revolution.
  2. ^ Robert W. Riebling, “Criteria for Optimum Propellant Mixing in Impinging-Jet Injection Elements,” AIAA Engineering Notes, June 1967, 817f.
  3. ^ Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road (ISBN 1-550-22548-0); Neil Peart, Traveling Music: The Soundtrack of My Life and Times, p. 20
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Riebling. 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 05:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Riebling&oldid=1208976424"