Talk:A. Whitney Brown
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
I've moved the following accreditation here, in reference to the SNL quote beginning with "There are a billion people in China". It was added by an anonymous IP (diff) who signed the note "AWB" - presumably, either being or impersonating the article's subject:
- I give credit for this joke to George Meyer, former SNL writer and The Simpsons head writer. He said it to me in the halls at SNL one Wednesday AM, after pulling an all-night writing session, he looked a little down, and was self-deprecating over a sketch he had written that hadn't got on the show. I said, "But, George, you're a one in a million kind of guy!" He said, "Great, that means there's 4 thousand of me." George had a science background.(AWB)
In either case, without a reference it doesn't really belong in the main article, so this seemed like a good spot for it. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 03:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Supporting the troops
Here's the link to the video.[1] Now we just need a good secondary source that covers it. Rklawton 18:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral source
Yes, RKLawton. The link directly to the Kos diary itself works. Linking to the partisan attack blog does not. Thanks for updating/correcting it. --AStanhope 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Along those lines, when one discounts all the blog-o-stuff, I've found exactly one main stream media article that covers this particular topic. I'm thinking maybe you were right on the money with the point that this whole issue isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion in a biographical article. Thoughts? Rklawton 02:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. In situations like this, it almost seems as if the editors inserting these tidbits want to use the article as a tool to turn the perceived transgression into something notable. Where there's smoke, there must be fire - so let's create a whole bunch of smoke! The subject of this article is 55 years old with a career as a comedian/satirist/activist that spans decades. Certainly he has expressed many ideas over the years that some would find offensive. Do we catalog all of them? I am uncomfortable with the idea that a non-event like this can suddenly become an albatross thrust upon the neck of a public figure overshadowing the rest of his biography. It's not the Wikipedia's job to choose the events for which a person is remembered. Society chooses what is notable and the Wikipedia reports on it. It shouldn't be the other way around. I can live with the Kos statement as it appears now in the article (without the "morally retarded" quote), however I would prefer that it be removed or watered down even more. "He is active in online political discourse..." Shall we give it a try? --AStanhope 06:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since the Kos thing never took off, I think we can just kill it completely. I had thought that it was a big deal, but then noted that it was only in the blogs. The article needs a sourced section on what type of comedy this guy does. Is it all political - or just topical? If it's political, is it left, right, or mixed? The problem I see is that after reading the current version, I've got a brief sense of his quality (emmy) and resume (prior gigs), but I really don't know much else. A photo would be nice, too. I'll see what I can do about the photo. Rklawton 15:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent observations. I'll see about being more descriptive with regards to the type of comedy he did and/or does. Isn't it nice when we can work together? --AStanhope 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since the Kos thing never took off, I think we can just kill it completely. I had thought that it was a big deal, but then noted that it was only in the blogs. The article needs a sourced section on what type of comedy this guy does. Is it all political - or just topical? If it's political, is it left, right, or mixed? The problem I see is that after reading the current version, I've got a brief sense of his quality (emmy) and resume (prior gigs), but I really don't know much else. A photo would be nice, too. I'll see what I can do about the photo. Rklawton 15:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. In situations like this, it almost seems as if the editors inserting these tidbits want to use the article as a tool to turn the perceived transgression into something notable. Where there's smoke, there must be fire - so let's create a whole bunch of smoke! The subject of this article is 55 years old with a career as a comedian/satirist/activist that spans decades. Certainly he has expressed many ideas over the years that some would find offensive. Do we catalog all of them? I am uncomfortable with the idea that a non-event like this can suddenly become an albatross thrust upon the neck of a public figure overshadowing the rest of his biography. It's not the Wikipedia's job to choose the events for which a person is remembered. Society chooses what is notable and the Wikipedia reports on it. It shouldn't be the other way around. I can live with the Kos statement as it appears now in the article (without the "morally retarded" quote), however I would prefer that it be removed or watered down even more. "He is active in online political discourse..." Shall we give it a try? --AStanhope 06:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
