Talk:Ken McCarthy

message: A substantial rework of this article is worth undertaking.  If only to comply with the MOS:BIO format recommended by Wikipedia.  Additionally, there are very good guidelines recommended by wp:bio.  Some suggested headings;
Contents [hide]
*1 Biography 
*1.1 Early life 
*1.2 Education
*1.3 Work Life 
*1.3.1 E-Media
*1.3.2 Amacord
*1.4 Activism
*1.4.1 San Francisco
*1.4.1.1 Brasscheck Works
*1.4.1.2 Fillmore Project
*1.4.2 Hudson River Valley
*1.4.3 New Orleans
*1.4.4 Other
*1.5 Current Work (last two years) 
*1.5.1 BrasscheckTV
*2 Works 
*3 Honors 
*4 See also 
*5 References 
*6 Further reading 
*7 External links
Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jettparmer (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving Format for Article 

message: A google search (narrow match) for "Ken McCarthy" returns 2,880,000 results. After google has eliminated "similar pages", there still remain 714 results (astonishing numbers for a non-media personality), most of which refer to this individual rather than others of the same name. The majority of these relate to his work as an Internet and business educator, with the remainder referring to his support for social projects. Virtually all third-party references are complimentary and respectful.
This establishes beyond any doubt that:
*he is a notable individual
*he is primarily known for his role as an educator, and secondarily as a social contributor
*he is widely respected by his public and his peers.
The onslaught on these pages appears to be nothing less than an attempt to smear his reputation on the basis of material (typically not even his own) on a handful of pages out of many thousands that he has published. DaveApter (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A sense of proportion

message: There are five separate usages of the term Conspiracy Theory, and (often deliberate) confusion between these meanings is frequently used as a dishonest means of discrediting revelations that some parties find inconvenient, or of smearing the reputations of those who make such revelations.
From the wikipedia article, the term has these five - related but distinct - interpretations:
#a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim
#a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
#frequently used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at stealing power or money from "the people"
#to refer to folklore and urban legend and a variety of explanatory narratives which are constructed with methodological flaws
#used in a pejorative sense to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed: ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational by the establishment. 
The article also notes that "[in]... the 1960s it acquired its current derogatory sense.
In short, uncontroversial identification of a thesis that it meets definition 1 or 3 is then used to move seamlessly to the assumption that it also meets definitions 2, 4 or 5; and thereby to dismiss it out of hand without examining the merits of the arguments. Also to dismiss the author of the thesis as a crackpot.
Because of this confusion, and because of the derogatory connotations of the phrase, I would suggest that it be avoided except where senses 4 or 5 above are explicitly meant. Does anyone object to that? DaveApter (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The trouble with this label

message: I have reverted the latest post by jettparmer.
His interpretation of elements of this story's significance are not only not supported  by the references he provides, it is contradicted by the them. DaveApter (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted to original with slight nodification.  Data is factual and reported widely at the time by the electronic and print media.  Jettparmer (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Review carefully the modified text.  This entry is certainly as significant as his work listed as activism.  It merited mention in major media, something his activism has not, and reflect an equally important in law as it pertained to internet speech.  It is expansive of the article, hardly redundant.  It also ties in to his origins with E-Media and time in San Francisco. I welcome any refinement, I hardly think there is any editorializing.  Jettparmer (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statements in the edit are not an accurate summary of what the sources actually say. DaveApter (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully disagree, why don't you try to edit the text rather than delete it?  I challenge that the material is relevant and important. Jettparmer (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest post re "internet free speech" 

message: Websites associated with this individual are being removed and aletered as this LP is being developed.  I suspect sockpuppetry and manipulation by the subject or proxy in this regard.  Entire websites, inactive for more than six years have been removed, others altered and in general a "scrubbing" of the "less than desirable elements of the information".  It would appear highly unlikely that this would occur were not the subject playing an active role.  Jettparmer (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Involvement by Subject / Possible Sockpuppetry 

message: I would like to call a time out in this edit war.  We need to review the circumstances (objectively) about this BLP.  The Ken McCarthy article is devolving into an edit war.  I am at odds over relevant content.  Additionally, I suspect some sockpuppetry at work.  During the development of the article several of the referenced web sites owned by the subject (Ken) have been changed as if in answer to the facts revealed in the article.  Additionally, yesterday, 24JAN09, his entire Brasscheck.com site went dark.  The BrasscheckTV site was recently transferred to a DomaninsByProxy ownership status, thus concealing the original owner.  I am beginning to feel that this individual really would not prefer to be the subject of a biography.  I also suspect that the page originally started out with commercial / vanity intent and has grown beyond itself.  I really would like your objective input (and that of any others).  It is my belief that the subject is too sensitive and thus the article should be deleted.  Thanks.  Jettparmer (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject Sensitivity 

message: Do not delete material from the biography.  Opinions on weight are extremely subjective.  I appreciate an editor's viewpoint on balance - however - the overall representation of writings, publishing or the impact of an individual's work can not be considered without a complete picture.  Recommend a better edit.  To do otherwise is contrary to WP:NPOV  Jettparmer (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War / Vandalism / Undue Weight / Bias 

message: I would submit to editors concerned about the article possibly portraying Ken negatively or in an unfair manner to reexamine the purpose of a biography.  It is intended to provide a comprehensive view of an individual, their life, background accomplishments and influences.  To simply provide one element of a person's work, beliefs or history provides a grossly distorted view.  Humanity is made up of complex individuals.  Their lives are the culmination of experiences, culture, upbringing, education and individual consciousness.  
Ken has already faced this issue when he posted his interview with Scott Ritter on his blog in June of 2007.  One poster wrote 
*"I liked it better when I didn't know your politics"
Indicating the potential polarizing effect of revealing one's beliefs in a commercial venue.  Ken further detailed his opinions during the Alterati interview.  If you examine his work, going back to his time in Frisco, these ideas have been a major part (and remarkably consistent) of his personal philosphy.  It seems to have influenced his project to support New Orleans businesses and oppose the cement plant in his part of New York.
I believe in equity and honesty in regard to presenting an individual's biography.  I detest revisionist views of any person's life or historical event.  The ability to interpret the facts, without undue bias, is a great gift an author gives his reader.  I would like the work here to reflect that spirit. Jettparmer (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Jettparmer (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why A Complete View of the Individual is Relevant to Biographies 

message: We need a good shot of Ken for the box.  I also liked the quote expansion.  It does add to the article.  Jettparmer (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture! 

message: Once again we are attempting to paint a picture of a living person while only using part of the public record.  The article is listed as c-grade as there are numerous holes in Ken's biography and areas which are not sufficiently substantiated.  The original article was a borderline commercial for Ken's internet marketing business and overlooked the entire aspect of his activism and journalistic involvement.  
It appears that nolatime and I are the only authors who seem to have an interest in this article.  Wikipedia has agreed that there is enough interest to have this bio, I believe it incumbent upon contributors and editors to make it compltet, neutral and accurate.Jettparmer (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Ken McCarthy 

message: Several citations about Ken's work in NYC and involvement in various businesses need better citations that the New Filmore article.  There is no public source record for his involvement, only vague references to involvement.Jettparmer (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations