Talk:John Aravosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Perhaps future deletions of whole paragraphs at a time cane by accompanied by explanation? Bds yahoo 23:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My reason for the edit has been posted

It is totally inappropriate to use Wiki as a vehicle for personal revenge. Your edit to the blogger's bio was made this afternoon right after the blogger wrote something that bothered you. As a result, you created an entire paragraph of content to add on this blogger's bio, centering on the incident that just happened, simply because you were annoyed. I read that blog too, and the incident hardly merits a wiki entry, especially one motivated by revenge. But worse still, you only include your side of the story and you make the totally false assertion that the blogger has only been an advocate for gay rights but not the rights of others.

In fact, if you Google his work you'll see that this person who you claim does not advocate beyond gay rights has, since the mid-90s, been an advocate for poor at-risk at the Childrens Defense Fund, has worked to help women at Planned Parenthood and the National Women's Law Center, among others, has worked on privacy and civil rights issue at the ACLU, has helped African-Americans, Asian-Americans and more working with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and more. The added material is simply false, and is further proof of the bias and revenge-motivation of the writer. Again, it is wrong to use Wiki to flame someone you just had a fight with. And it's even worse to not write the truth. That is why your paragraph was deleted.

Thanks for your explanation, anonymous one. Bds yahoo 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If Aravosis was a mainstream media figure, criticism of his actions as writer and editor would be appropriate, but because he's a blogger, they aren't? Since when did being a blogger exempt you from media criticism? See Matt Drudge's page, for instance. If the criticism is one-sided, then present the other side!
I am going to add the flattering things you said about him to the page in the hopes that that satisfies NPOV standards. And I hope instead of deleting, future editors choose to add. The point of this place is to inform, through as much information possible, not present sanitized histories.Bds yahoo 13:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
"Weasal words"? Please. Everything is attributed.
"Writer is making unsubstantiated allegations of subject not caring about "other causes" then doesn't list them or prove it.)"
As example, I cited his indifference to the charge that using the word "girl" as a slur is sexist. Aravosis dismissed the criticism as irrelevant and refused to edit his post. Concern for the equality of the sexes is a progressive value. I have sourced all of this. Hopefully, as people continue to edit this article, more examples (such as the notorious Andrew Sullivan debacle) will be added. Bds yahoo 15:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more unsubstantiated claims

You "have sources for all of this" yet you chose to write your wiki entry and not cite the sources. Nice. That's because this is a revenge post. You continue to only present one side of a rather weak story since you were personally upset with Aravosis and now want revenge. Again, that's not the reason people edit wikis, for revenge. It's for facts. You claim that Aravosis doesn't support "other causes" on his blog, then you get into a dispute over word choice. That's a non sequitor. That blog routinely posts about women's issues (just this week about cervical cancer vaccine in trouble), about African-Americans, has been all over the Latino immigration issue (including covering the pro-Latino protests live with photos), on environmental issues, on civil rights issues across the board, against guns, against the religious right, and so on. But because you didn't like one phrase in a title you think you can post a "criticism" accusing someone of not being good on other progressive causes - that's a lie, and you're not going to use wiki to lie in order to push your revenge.

Excuse me, are you insane? All the sources are clearly linked every every sentence (sometimes every phrase) I wrote on the page.
And please, follow wikipedia protocol and sign your talk page comments. Bds yahoo 23:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Because ppmana's most recent edits removed all of my citations (a total abuse of editing) in order to make my additions look unsourced, I am reverting to the last edit prior to his barrage of edits. I also recommend he be banned. Bds yahoo 23:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You deleted half the bio full of footnotes, what is your problem?

You just deleted half the bio full of footnotes because you claim your footnotes were deleted? Not a single footnote of yours was touched. Seriously, stop using Wiki as your own personal revenge, that last edit was an utter lie - you deleted half a bio full of footnotes for no reason. I am reverting back to the bio that was there moments ago which had a lot more information.

[edit] What citations are you talking about?

I just re-read your post, now you're asking that I be banned? Check the history, contrary to what you're claiming, I didn't touch a single of your footnotes or your sentences or anything else you wrote - even though you'll note that a third party warned that you were creating a "weasel word" criticism about this blogger.

As the history shows, I simply added additional paragraphs to the top of the bio, with citations, and added additional information about the incident you decided to write about. Again, anyone reading this can check the history - your text is still in this bio, I simply added more information to balance your attack on this blogger. There is most certainly nothing wrong with that. You, on the other hand, deleted half the bio with footnotes.

And as for banning, you are here to launch some revenge attack on a blogger that angered you yesterday. That's hardly an appropriate reason to add content to someone's wiki. If you are going to post personal attacks, unsubstantiated, on here then you should expect other people to add more facts to the story. That is not counter to Wiki's purpose, it is Wiki's purpose. PPmana 22:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Deleting External Links

It is a lie to claim that criticism by Shakespeare's Sister is irrelevant because the Shakespeare's Sister blog is not "authoriatative." As this chart, courtesy Alexa, shows, Shakespeare's Sister is actually a MUCH more widely visited blog than Americablog. To claim that it is a two-days-old blog with very little traffic, even if that were enough to invalidate its criticisms (which it isn't), is simply to lie. Bds yahoo 17:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what you just wrote is incorrect, per Alexa itself. You didn't use the primary URL for Americablog - blogs hosted on blogger (aka blogspot) have their primary traffic registered via that domain, not their virtual domain. When you use the correct blogspot address for Americablog (americablog.blogspot.com) you see the real chart which shows quite clearly that Americablog (traffic rank 11,500) getting MUCH more traffic than Shakespeare's Sister (traffic rank 175,000). Shakespeare's Sister is not a well known blog, you might as well link to every other blog out there that has an opinion on Aravosis or Americablog. PPmana 22:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The site that's 2 days old is that EverydayActivist blog

It's the first link you put up that was only 2 days old and not authoritative. As for Shakespeare's Sister, it's not at all clear how a link to one blog's opinion about a single post on another blog is relevant in the links section of this or any wiki entry. There are numerous other blogs praising Aravosis' posts (and work) about cell phone privacy, women's issue, various gay issues and more. Are we to put up every link in the links section from every blog that's ever had an opinion about Aravosis or his blog? Judging by the size of his blog, 100,000 daily readers, and the number of Google entries about him (299,000), this seems rather ridiculous posting one opinion and not all of them, and it also shows the irrelevance of your one link. As stated before, you came here two days ago to attack Aravosis because you disagreed with one post on his blog. Taking revenge is not a really valid reason to edit a wiki entry, especially when the content you're adding is de minimis. PPmana 22:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

PPmana, I have added the changes you made to the Americablog page to this one. Can we agree on this version and end this edit war? I have no problem with presenting both sides, as long as both sides ARE presented. Bds yahoo 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're trying to reach a middle ground, since that is what wiki is about. And I'm happy to agree to leave the de minimis criticism on the Americablog profile page at all - you're raising one bizarre episode on the blog and making it the highlight of the criticms because you're seeking revenge on the blog, and that's weird. But if you really want to insist on having it there, fine - people are going to read it and think the entry is childish. Having said that, putting up this bizarre criticism of some post on Americablog on John Aravosis' own wiki, that's just not relevant and it's kind of spam-ish when that criticism is already on wiki under the blog entry.
And finally, you never responded to my proof that the sites you're linking to in the links section are not authoritative, and in fact you're linking to friends to help them. The blog you claimed was bigger than Americablog is in fact a small blog, and the Alexa link proves it - it simply isn't authoritative and adds nothing of value that thousands of other blog opinion posts would add as well. If you want to link to one blog post about Aravosis that criticizes him on a blog that isn't even an important blog, then that opens up the links to all sorts of links to blogs that praise Aravosis - and I just googled him, there are 299,000 Google entries for his name and more than enough praise, praise from blogs such as Atrios and DailyKos and the WashingtonNote, some of the top blogs out there which are certainly more authoritative than the two obscure ones you link to. Are we to link to every blog entry that praises him now on all the other posts he's written? Again, the links section should be for substantive links that add to the profile, not your revenge links to friends.
And finally, your link to that everydayblog is again totally inappropriate. That is a "blog" set up 2 days ago to attack Aravosis. It's not even a real blog. It's someone copying his comments section and reproducing it for one post, that's it. It's again, just bizarre. How is that an authoritative link for people searching for more information about Aravosis's bio? Should we all just create Web sites out of thin air and link to them as authoritative?
I am happy to let you add your bizarre and irrelevant criticism about Americablog on the Americablog entry, but adding an entire section to a personal bio about your weird concern about a single blog post is abusing what wiki is about - it's about adding unbiased substance, not adding fake sites that were just created in order to launch a personal revenge attack on someone. PPmana 03:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] '"And finally, you never responded to my 'proof' that the sites you're linking to in the links section are not authoritative, and in fact you're linking to friends to help them."

PPmana, I have not responded because it's an insane, conspiracy-theory-minded criticism of me to say I am linking to 'friends'! I thought it was most polite to let it go. These aren't my friends. I am a regular reader of Americablog who has seen the good and bad of this blog, and seen other controversies before. This was the first one where I felt the need to take the initiative to document the controversy on Wikipedia. This was not about 'revenge', and I honestly have to wonder why you are so certain that my motivations are personal; I have never accused you of being a friend of Aravosis, though possibly you are. As you point out, I focussed rather intently on a single incident, but that's because I don't really want to research the other incidents and am leaving it to others to add that information if they choose. The nice thing about wiki is that it's a collaborative project, and I am not responsible for perfecting this article; I can leave it to you and others to do that.

As for the 'authoritative' criticism, that doesn't really impress me because it's the same criticism that gets levelled all the time against Wikipedia itself, as well as blogs like Americablog. If 'authoritative' means printed on dead trees and/or centralized editorial control, then I say you are operating under a pre-wiki, pre-blog mentality that fetishizes old media.

With that, I am going to add to the links you added the one you deleted to Shakespeare's Sister. I'll leave the other one off, since it does get very few hits, admittedly. I don't mind links to negative articles being outnumbered by links to positive articles. But let allow readers to know these sites exist, and let them decide for themselves whether they find them authoritative. Agreed? Bds yahoo 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the blog link that was reinserted as related posts and comments have been direclty sourced, and the actual commenters have been given voice. It is worth noting that the Shakespeare sister link begins with a link to the newly created, low-traffic, "attack" blog. Furthermore, I beieve that the objections of commenters to the "big girl" blog post is sufficiently narrow in focus to be covered in the Americablog entry (if at all), and is completely out of place in the Aravosis entry. Really, the topic is much more related to the blog. zphyche 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Zpyche, can you explain given your logic why you also deleted the link from the Americablog entry? If you are not being totally disingenuous, then you will allow me to restore it to Americablog, and leave it out on John Aravosis. OK? Bds yahoo 14:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Bds yahoo, I responded on the Americablog talk page (see 16:42, 23 May 2006) zphyche 16:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC).
Okay, phyche. PPmana, I see you have made new changes with a brand new rationale--you are really something else! Anyway I happen to agree that it's pointless to have this criticism on both pages. Besides, it will be easier for me to be vigilant about vandalism on one rather than two pages. Bds yahoo 02:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] npov, folks

The language in this thing makes him sound like a hero--which is possible, and yet falls out of the realm of categories articles should assert upon their subjects.

For example: "Aravosis launched a one-man campaign..." "Aravosis also took on the..." "Aravosis single-handedly came to his defense.." etc.

A bit much, no? russ. 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. Sounds a bit like a 'puff piece' in those areas. There's surely a way to state the facts without so much butter. MrEguy 11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also agree with this sentiment. This article is almost of questionable relevance separate from the article Americablog and perhaps the two should be merged. This would give a better test of the content on this page, and perhaps give editors some guidance on what is relevant about Aravosis' personal biography in Wikipedia vs. the relevance of Americablog. As it stands, this article is a bit of a puff piece.NYDCSP 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year of Birth is 1963

A Washington Post article dated February 24, 2004 notes John's age as 40 (12th paragraph, two thirds way down the page) "Aravosis, 40, is president of Wired Strategies, an Internet consulting firm" verifying his year of birth to be 1963 and current age 43.

MrEguy 01:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable relevance as a separate article

I'm going to start a thread here for some discussion from my post above under NPOV (which I forgot to sign until today, sorry). I really think this article suffers greatly from two major problems -- number one, it reads like a puff piece, almost glorifying its subject, rather than NPOV; and secondly, there is little to nothing in this article that is separately relevant from the article Americablog.

On the first point, it appears to have been started as a very puffy piece, and has drawn critics as a result rather than improving edits. On the second point, reading back through to the original content, I don't see anything that ever really justified this article being made separate from Americablog, since the content of this article, as well as the subject, appear to be one and the same. (btw, anticipating criticism: It's not "anti-blog" to argue that a one-man blog and its author are arguably one and the same, unless it is done under a 'character' pen name that deviates or is otherwise distinguished from the author's true identity and personality)

So, for the sake of editor discussion here, I'm going to propose this article be moved into Americablog and redundancies eliminated (as well as POV stylings). Should substantial new content emerge separate from Americablog that would justify an article that is more than a stub on Mr. Aravosis, then I think we should re-mount a separate article on this subject.

I will add (given most of the discussion on this page) that I am not a reader of Americablog, nor an admirer or "hater" of the subject of this article. I am just reading all this from the perspective of a WP editor.NYDCSP 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Who Wrote this Thing???

It's in need of some serious sourcing. Tons of unsubstantiated stuff that simply doesn't pass the sniff test. I counted five "single-handed" campaigns. It may be true, but it has to be sourced by something. It also sounds alot like an editorial more than an article. Matt Sanchez 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)