Talk:James Robert Baker

message: Why is the controversy section in the Biography section? It's not biographical, and would make much more sense as a seperate section. CloudNine 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: Sorry I didn't get a chance to review this article when it was at FAC:  many (most) of the references are inadequate.  It should be easy to clean these up so the article won't require a Featured article review..  Here are some examples:
* (specify this site in the references, with a consistent bibliographic style - I see it is listed as an External link, which isn't where it belongs if it was used as a source)  Robertson's official Baker website 
**DONE
* (This article needs a title or an author - is Roy Riverburg the author or the name of the article - one or the other is missing.)  Roy Rivenburg, Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1993; Page E-1, 
**DONE
* (This article has no title, how is a reader supposed to find it without knowing the name of the article?)  New York Times, November 24, 1997; Section B; Page 7; Column 2
**DONE 
* (Ditto - no name for the article here.)  L.A. Times, November 15, 1997, page A-20
**DONE 
* (This doesn't include author, title, publication date, etc.)  L.A. Times, November 15, 1997, page A-20 
**DONE 
* These are not full sources - readers need to know author, publication dated, and article title - a reader has no means of locating the articles:
**Daily Variety, December 11, 1997.
***DONE 
**New York Times, September 4, 1988
***DONE 
**Press release of clippings from Baker's agent 
***DONE 
** Los Angeles Times, April 19, 1993, Monday, Home Edition, View; Part E; Page 2; Column 1
***This one is just letters to the editor--should I type "letters section"? 
****Under author - but that raises a problem of reliable sources, as letters to the editor can be considered "self published" - double check what you were referencing with that, and see if it needs a better source.  Sandy (Talk) 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequate references

message: *Still missing - Daily Variety, December 11, 1997.
**DONE 
*Not sure what this is - If it's a book, it needs a publisher; if it's a magazine, it needs an article title.  Pegrum, Mark. Mots pluriels; Vol.1. no 3. 1997
**DONE 
Much better now, but this should not have passed FA in the condition it was in before. I'm also not thrilled with the quality of some of the sources, but I was traveling when it was at FAC, and didn't review.  If you can improve the sources (removing self-published and tabloid sources where possible and adding more sources like LA Times and NY Times), it would be good. Sandy (Talk) 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mostly done

message: From my understanding, the term tabloid in relation to this paper has more to do with the format than the content, since it is a merging of a conservative morning tabloid newspaper with an afternoon broadsheet. I have never read the paper myself (except for the one article I used for research here), but their website says it's Australia's largest selling newspaper. Jeffpw 11:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Herald Sun]]

message: This article leaves one wondering. It should explore deeper into why he commited suicide, especially considering that suicide seem to be tragically prevalent among gays(discrimination?). People don't commit suicide 'just' like that, there must be more to it. 87.59.77.188 (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did he commit suicide and why? 

message: There has been some to and fro with respect to choice of term on this matter. Do we have any sources that support either version? __meco (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The LA Times uses "partner" in it's obit  which lends weight to life partner.  Boyfriend seems less committed and more casual. — Becksguy (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and we wouldn't want to make someone into something more committing if they weren't that. __meco (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I would suggest longtime partner or longtime companion. The use of the term lifetime on male-male relationships would require an explicit statement of intent for younger couples, I'd say. Only where there's a fait accompli, i.e. when the relationship had in fact lasted a lifetime, I would find the use of this term justifiable without the partners themselves explicitly using of that label. __meco (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I would support life-partner as they couldn't have been married. longtime companion is more archaic.  -- Banjeboi 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Then lifetime partner (perhaps wikilinked to life partner) seems reasonable.  -- Banjeboi 16:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long term boyfriend vs. life partner 

message: We really shouldn't have a "controversy" section. It denotes poor and POV writing. Instead content should be merged, reworked or removed as appropriate to remain NPOV.  -- Banjeboi 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you're aware that Jeffpw is deceased and can't improve the article. I rather doubt that he intended POV, but he certainly can't fix it now.  Would it trouble you to just merge the text as you wish, rather than tagging the article?  Nonetheless, controversy and criticism sections are quite common in articles that have to deal with critical reception (artists, writers, etc.); perhaps you could rename the section to that and rework it accordingly.  On the other hand, you could just take it to FAR and have Jeff's work defeatured.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all too aware of jeff's passing and was thinking of him earlier today but signed on anyway. I had no idea this was his creation and also have no interest in deflating its quality or rating. We should probably look to renaming and moving content. Controversy sections are going the way of trivia sections - they are tolerated but are considered a sign of a section in need of redecorating.  -- Banjeboi 01:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe "Critical reception" is more in line with the current trend for handling "criticism" of artists, authors and their works.  I don't feel comfortable reworking Jeff's article although I did access some of the sources a few days ago to do some cleanup; if you do feel comfortable about it, perhaps you'll give it a go?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My plate over-floweth although I'm happy to help if pinged or prodded. I'm a good week or so behind on my vandalism watchlist.  -- Banjeboi 16:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tagged

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on James Robert Baker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041211003240/http://www.planetout.com:80/entertainment/books/reviews/baker.html to http://www.planetout.com/entertainment/books/reviews/baker.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:Jeffpw (now deceased) created this article with Baker's birth year listed as 1947, then he quickly changed it to 1946 here but kept :Category:1947 births, all without citing a source. According to the cited obituaries from NY Times, LA Times, and Variety, Baker died at age 50, which is consistent with a birthdate of October 18, 1947, not October 18, 1946. Does anyone know for sure, with a WP:Reliable Source, so we can fix the inconsistencies? —Patrug (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born 1946 or 1947? 

message: There are some spots where this older FA promotion no longer meets the featured article criteria.
* I don't think Blues for Peace is high-quality RS
* We should not be using an Amazon author page in a FA
* Date of birth is never directly cited anywhere
* Awfulagent appears to possibly be regurgitated press releases (it reads like the back cover of a book), and the citation suggests this as well. Should we be citing this?  Does this violate WP:COPYLINK?
* What makes knittingcircle high-quality RS?
* "By 2006, first editions of Adrenaline, Boy Wonder, Fuel-Injected Dreams and Tim and Pete had become collector's items and commanded high prices at rare book store" - we should not be citing an alibris page for this
* "Though Tim and Pete was his most controversial work, Boy Wonder is generally considered his magnum opus, and remains his most popular book" - sourced to a webpage of dubious reliability, and then a selected reading list from what appears to be Christian McLaughlin; we can and should do better for sourcing here
* What makes trashfiction.co high-quality RS?
Improvements will be needed here, or WP:FAR may be necessary. Hog Farm  Talk 04:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  23:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] notes