Talk:Chuck Munson

message: Okay, what's the scoop on the use of this article?  From the edit summary of the edit at 19:31, we are supposed to learn that this individual "can only be" Munson.  At best, this is original research; it might also be unverifiable.  thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check almost any other external link on the page; Munson runs Infoshop.org. The ref isn't even necessary to establish he is an anarchist, and can be easily replaced, but it does verify info about Munson and it is a useful piece for readers. скоморохъ 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But do you disagree that the use of the reference in this way constitutes original research?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a little abusive of the OR tag. When something as benign as this is totally obvious, please ignore all rules. Murderbike (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: What you might be thinking of is WP:SYN. And no, I agree with Murderbike; it's clear as day and uncontroversial that Munson is a) an anarchist b) the individual behind Infoshop.org and c) the person referred to in that quote. You can challenge it if you like, but I don't exactly see why anyone would want to. Regards, скоморохъ 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, of course, synthesis.  The reason to object to it is that it makes it more difficult to argue in other cases where something isn't as benign; it doesn't strike me as a good precedent.  As for whether or not he's an anarchist, I have no idea - never heard of him before.  I just think the source doesn't do the work claimed for it here. Why do you consider it necessary to use it? Are there no other sources that will do?  thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no worry about precedent - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you look to the first discussion on this page, you will see that Munson himself has listed a number of resources, including Why I am an anarchist for editors use. We don't have to use this specific source here, I just think it would be a shame to remove it altogether as it has a lot of informative material, is a secondary source, and is a reliable scholarly source, unlike much info on Munson online. I'll move it somewhere else. Regards, скоморохъ 20:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I've also just noticed that the quote refers to someone in DC, but in the intro to the page on Munson here it says that he is in Kansas.  (If only it were true that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"!!  People argue in terms of precedent all the time here, and I imagine that's inevitable.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Munson's location differed at the respective timesof writing - he did spend some time in DC. It helps in general to keep a firm grasp of Ignore all rules in mind, I think. We wouldn't want to have to find sources for the claim that Tony Blair is expressly not a Martian, for example. Hope the new version of the article is more to your liking. Regards, скоморохъ 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: My take is that this citation was added by somebody to shut up the idiot who was questioning anything and everything about the entry on me. They had a political axe to grind and they took out their problems with me by arguing that I wasn't an anarchist. This "citation trolling", for want of a better term, is an annoying abuse of Wikipedia. It's well-established that I'm an anarchist. The New York Times even published a feature on me that noted that I am an anarchist. People ought to read that article on Slashdot today about the fight between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" across Wikipedia. What this person was doing is similar to the deletionist philosophy. This cited article may be a bit off topic, but I think whoever added it was making a good faith effort to provide citations to shut up the troll. Chuck0 (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Critical Studies in Media Communication 

message: I'd like to get this article removed from Wikipedia as the subject of this article. Can anybody advise? Do I have to nominate it again for non-notability? I am not a public figure and this biographical article is way longer than articles about famous people. Chuck0 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't delete articles on subject request, and articles that have been kept at deletion discussions (as this one has twice) cannot be deleted except through another deletion discussion (AfD). That said, the decisions to keep in previous discussions were marginal, norms have changed somewhat since, and editors tend to be sympathetic to subject requests, so a deletion proposal would have a fighting chance. If you like I can nominate it on your behalf. An alternative would be to quietly redirect it to Infoshop.org or Alternative Media Project, which would be fine as long as no-one objected.  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't participate in Wikipedia any more, so I don't know the current norms or policies. I can live with this article staying here, but only if several things are removed. The main thing I will insist on being removed is the part about where I live. That provides no useful information to this entry and it's a violation of my privacy. I also want the link removed to my personal blog. I think these are reasonable requests. Chuck0 (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd also like removed the following: 1) The sentence about my academic background. Most biographical entries on Wikipedia don't include similar information and this is irrelevant to this entry; 2) the sentence about me working at the University Of Maryland. This entry is already too long for a biography of a non-notable subject, so I think these deletions will actually improve this article. Chuck0 (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's within discretionary range, so no objections from me. Are there any remaining issues with the article?  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Couldn't agree more, to be quite honest. -- Kharay1977TC 01:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove article

message: Can all, or some of the anarchist stuff, be removed from this entry, as I no longer identify myself as an anarchist? The "anarchism" and "anarchist without adjectives" boxes should at least be removed. Chuck0 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to go that route then there is not much point in retaining the article; as such, I've redirected it to Infoshop.org.  Skomorokh  22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you do that? Infoshop.org is not me. It's a collective project. Chuck0 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove anarchist stuff?