Talk:Bryan A. Garner

message: This article as written seems to fawn over Mr. Garner. I also wonder whether there are conflict of interest issues as a major contributor is "Thelegalwriter". —Noah 07:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go for it. Owning an article means making changes and assuming those changes must stay because it is your article. What you described doing is "fixing and making it better."  Cheers, —Noah 07:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The section on footnotes, in particular, seems to be written to favor Mr. Garner's view.  For instance, it uses the term "interlarded" to describe citations not in footnotes. ConDissenter (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Your close connection with and "fan" relationship to the subject are a Wikipedian conflict of interest. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  23:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  23:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User Thelegalwriter made 11 edits to the article 4 years ago. There is nothing in his statement (clarification) that suggests there was a close relationship.  A newspaper reporter or biographer can certainly know a person well and conduct numerous, if not hundreds, of interviews with a subject, and doing so does not make the writer a fan.  This new (back then) editor made a contribution that was worthwhile. The article has been improved since then, and the article can use more improvement now. --S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fawning? (npov) 

message: I agree there are some problems here.  I started the article because I was familiar with some of Garner's work, and I felt sufficient material could be found to establish notability.  However, the biography and article section on this page really seem out of hand.  
Since I started the article I'm hesitant to be the one to start cutting things down.  (I don't want to make it seem like I'm trying to “own” the article.)  However, if someone else is willing to take the lead in trimming the article, I'll be happy to help out.
Since there is now a separate article on Garner's Modern American Usage, the section should be able to be deleted without much controversy.  So, I'll do that anyway. Fixer1234 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go for it. Owning an article means making changes and assuming those changes must stay because it is your article. What you described doing is "fixing and making it better."  Cheers, —Noah 07:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: I appreciate your criticism and I will edit the stub.  But this is not Mr. Garner.  I wrote a portion of this stub as a second-year associate working Dallas.  I have interviewed Mr. Garner on several occasions about his life, work, and writings.  I wanted others to know a bit more about him so they could have a better picture of the man and the scholar.  I encourage anyone to help me in editing this stub appropriately for Wikipedia. User: Thelegalwriter  —Preceding comment was added at 15:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on footnotes, in particular, seems to be written to favor Mr. Garner's view.  For instance, it uses the term "interlarded" to describe citations not in footnotes. ConDissenter (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Your close connection with and "fan" relationship to the subject are a Wikipedian conflict of interest. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  23:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  23:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User Thelegalwriter made 11 edits to the article 4 years ago. There is nothing in his statement (clarification) that suggests there was a close relationship.  A newspaper reporter or biographer can certainly know a person well and conduct numerous, if not hundreds, of interviews with a subject, and doing so does not make the writer a fan.  This new (back then) editor made a contribution that was worthwhile. The article has been improved since then, and the article can use more improvement now. --S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: David Foster Wallace (q.v.) was a well-known American novelist who died in 2008. He wrote abot Garner at length here: http://harpers.org/media/pdf/dfw/HarpersMagazine-2001-04-0070913.pdf
He calls Garner " a genius, though of a rather particular kind". In fact his article prompted me to look up Garner on Wikipedia.
I cannot edit Wikipedia, don't want to mess up the page, but if anyone is interested I believe DFW's article would be a good reference to put in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.12.219 (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Foster Wallace on Garner 

message: In this edit, an editor altered
:The linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum had this criticism:
to
:The linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum, who has repeatedly complained in print that he was not chosen to author the chapter  instead of Garner, had this criticism of the 15th edition:
Yes, it was the 15th edition. As for the rest, I'm surprised to learn that Pullum has repeatedly made this complaint. I click on the link and see no evidence for the claim. Here's what Pullum writes:
:When the University of Chicago Press started on the revisions that led to CMS 15, they could have lifted the phone and made an on-campus call to the late, great James McCawley, a professor in the Department of Linguistics there throughout his long career, and an author of many books with the Press. They could have asked him for advice. They did not, clearly. McCawley knew the field of English syntax as well as anyone alive, and would perhaps have offered to do the chapter himself, or to read and critique the chapter when it was submitted, or to advise them on who might be chosen to do write it.
Well, a known disadvantage of an encyclopedia that anybody can edit is that total bollocks can be added and then not noticed for months, while the article continues to mislead those gullible enough to believe what it says without verifying it via the references.
Here, though, the additional problem is that this edit was one of a series made to this article by the same editor. I suggest treating the entire set as suspect. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of fiction to the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bryan A. Garner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220328/http://www.kera.org/radio/talkshow/ProgramDetails.lasso?&id=4404&program=talkshow&show=The%20Talk%20Show to http://www.kera.org/radio/talkshow/ProgramDetails.lasso?&id=4404&program=talkshow&show=The%20Talk%20Show
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I failed at parsing this sentence:  He argues for putting citations in footnotes and notes that in-text information that is important but non-bibliographic. Specifically, is notes a verb or a noun? If a noun, what is a note as opposed to a footnote? What should go into a footnote and what shouldn't?--2.204.225.128 (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax