Jump to content

Talk:Rob Brezsny: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m clean up / standrdising banner names / talk page gen fixes using AWB (11720)
→‎Music career: new section
Line 14: Line 14:


::Yes, I agree the Astrologer section should be rewritten. It appears most or all of that was written in 2006 by [[Eric Francis]], another astrologer and apparently a fan. However, Brezsny's writings are unique - especially in the astrology column world. Remarking on his extraordinary style is within and encouraged by the guidelines on peacock terms. I'll try to communicate this without sounding "preeningly POV" or dust jacket copy. At any rate, this section needs improvement. Any other areas of the article that you consider peacockish ? [[User:Doctorfree|Ronald Joe Record]] ([[User talk:Doctorfree|talk]]) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, I agree the Astrologer section should be rewritten. It appears most or all of that was written in 2006 by [[Eric Francis]], another astrologer and apparently a fan. However, Brezsny's writings are unique - especially in the astrology column world. Remarking on his extraordinary style is within and encouraged by the guidelines on peacock terms. I'll try to communicate this without sounding "preeningly POV" or dust jacket copy. At any rate, this section needs improvement. Any other areas of the article that you consider peacockish ? [[User:Doctorfree|Ronald Joe Record]] ([[User talk:Doctorfree|talk]]) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== Music career ==

The subject has been in touch with me complaining about the recent removals. I explained that the promotional blurbs were against policy and he understands this. But he asserts that his musical career is notable and I agree. Being a member of a notable band which has its own article, [[Worldwide Entertainment War]] is notable. So is having written a song on a Jefferson Starship album. So the problem is sourcing, not notability.

I have suggested that he create an account and supply sources here on the talk pages, as I don't currently have the bandwidth to do the research. Rather than remove the material again, which is neither negative or disputed, please consider looking for sources instead.

Thanks! [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:18, 16 July 2018

WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
WikiProject iconAstrology Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I'm concerned that this page refers to "many surprisingly accurate, astute forecasts" without providing any documentation. I think this should be cut. Anyone? Palaverist 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cut it" or provide some strong examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.100.40 (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock template

User:Fordmadoxfraud added a peacock template to this article. The user may not wish to directly improve the article but providing specifics would be helpful. Which phrases/words/paragraphs did you find promotional without imparting any real information ? I'm reading the peacock template info now and the list of words and phrases to look for is daunting. "Peacock terms" - clever. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph headed "Astrologer" is uncited, unencyclopedic in tone, preeningly POV, and reads like dust jacket copy from one of Brezsny's books. Sentences like "Many have attempted to imitate him, but it rarely comes off." belong in a press kit, not an encyclopedia article. Ford MF (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree the Astrologer section should be rewritten. It appears most or all of that was written in 2006 by Eric Francis, another astrologer and apparently a fan. However, Brezsny's writings are unique - especially in the astrology column world. Remarking on his extraordinary style is within and encouraged by the guidelines on peacock terms. I'll try to communicate this without sounding "preeningly POV" or dust jacket copy. At any rate, this section needs improvement. Any other areas of the article that you consider peacockish ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music career

The subject has been in touch with me complaining about the recent removals. I explained that the promotional blurbs were against policy and he understands this. But he asserts that his musical career is notable and I agree. Being a member of a notable band which has its own article, Worldwide Entertainment War is notable. So is having written a song on a Jefferson Starship album. So the problem is sourcing, not notability.

I have suggested that he create an account and supply sources here on the talk pages, as I don't currently have the bandwidth to do the research. Rather than remove the material again, which is neither negative or disputed, please consider looking for sources instead.

Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]