Talk:Judd Bagley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Weiss

Obviously Weiss, as a credible journalist, is at least somewhat reliable even on his blog, and could presumably be used as a source for this article. On the other hand, the matter is contentious enough that I'm hard-pressed to figure out exactly how to approach this in the most NPOV manner possible. Thoughts on A) Whether Weiss's blog can be a reliable source, and B) How it can be included with deference to both NPOV and BLP? Phil Sandifer 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Weiss's blog is written in a very personal and subjective manner (i.e. he's free to express just how pissed off he is with Bagley), and I'm sure he'd entirely agree it's not the same sort of thing as his Forbes articles. However, it may or may not be relevant if directly referred to in disinterested third-party coverage - David Gerard 19:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Which it is - it could probably, if nothing else, be used as a primary source for the argument between the two. Phil Sandifer 19:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it'd be pushing it myself. If we can do it without it then good - David Gerard 20:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

overstock.com and Patrick M. Byrne have many referenced press articles which might be useful for this article, including live web links - David Gerard 20:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

If you're going to write a "biography" on somebody, it should be neutral and not give undue weight to scandals and other events. I am removing material that is inconsistent with WP:BLP. 75.116.129.17 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is giving undue weight to scandals, please feel free to add other material. Removing sourced material, however, is generally considered vandalism. Phil Sandifer 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, the article must be balanced. If you want to add material, do so in a balanced fashion. Until then I will revert to an appropriate version. 166.166.239.195 03:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added all the positive material on Bagley that I could find. Please feel free to propose more if I've missed something. Phil Sandifer 03:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You've missed nothing. There is simply not enough reliably sourced material to construct an article on this person.--Mantanmoreland 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically all the reliable sources about Bagley are negative. As a result this 'biography' is so grossly unbalanced that it looks like a hatchet job. Eventualism is not really an acceptable approach to biographies of living people. I have stubbed the article, and protected it to prevent likely further violation of our policy on living people. Tom Harrison Talk 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

While the material here seems relaible, it is really about Overstock.com rather than Judd Bagley. Aside from some earlier work, everything that's described in this article concerns Overstock. I suggest it be merged to that article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable?

(rv sock)

Pretty much all of the above is original research, I'm afraid, and not grounds to ignore the inherent reliability that Bloomberg, the New York Times, the New York Post, or HedgeWorld Daily News has. If you can find a reliable source in which this is all discussed, however, we can edit the article to include mention of this criticism of the sources. Phil Sandifer 12:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The new SPA is so persuasive that I wonder if my delete vote was mistaken.--Mantanmoreland 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think WP:NOR applies to assessing what goes into an article, not to judging the aptness of sources themselves. Otherwise, every instance of a wikipedian saying "I think..." on a talk page would be in violation of NOR. Consenus follows examining our varied opinions here and then acting to make the content of the article reflect them. WP:NOR is just one of many criteria used in that process.
Let's look a little closer at WP:RS in this case. It states:
Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
Antilla, as an opinion columnist, does not have this. As Bloomberg says: "her opinions are her own."
Antilla, not Bloomberg, fails RS in this context.
RS further states:
Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
What equips an expert on hedge funds to be a source on a director of communications of an internet retailer who in turn has no connection to hedge funds? Faille's characterization of events is far from generally accepted as accurate and is potentially libelous. Is he the person you want in that position?
Faille fails RS
Roddy Boyd writes for the New York Post. That might mean something if it were in any section but Business, and if Boyd didn't have a verifiable reputation of antagonism toward Overstock.com and Bagley, coupled with a repuaion of coziness with Weiss.
Boyd fails RS
Remember, these are not questions about what someone's favorite color is. These are exceptional claims with exceptional implications and even reputations in the balance. Accordingly, you'd best choose precisely the right sources, or none at all.--Nonsense on Stilts 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above is this account's one and only edit. That's coming up to speed remarkably quickly for a new user! Goodness! - David Gerard 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
They call it "strategic messaging," and it must pay well to be quit so despicable for all to see. In fact I removed the comment entirely as it is obviously an edit by a banned user (WordBomb)--Samiharris 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not encyclopedic

This article is a violation of this policy. Current events, like most news, has a short shelf-life. This guy is simply not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Anyone who gets a thrill writing about him should go to Wikinews. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This person is not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic article about his activities, disguised as a biography. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Were these comments meant to go on the AFD that's currently running? - David Gerard 19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotected this talk page

I'm heartened that a Wikipedia article can generate so much interest from new users, many of whom create an account just to edit or comment here. However, it's unhelpful at best - David Gerard 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

These users are obvious socks of banned user WordBomb. Surprise surprise.--Samiharris 20:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)