Talk:Graeme Frost

message: There is definitely a controversy surrounding Frost's speech and bio.  We need to have a NPOV article without claiming web sources to be left, right or whatever.  It's true that we have WP:RS guidelines, but nowhere it gives a list of RS, so before deleting (as opposed to editing) anything please discuss what you are doing on this talk page. Thank you. Mhym 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: ThinkProgress and the CAP as discussed above is a reputable source.  They are registered as a non-partisan organization.   They have a budget the size of CATOs.  Why would you remove their claim to this email, when for example in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Controversy article, a similar claim to an email is left to stand?
Why is the Weekly Standard's blog more reputable than ThinkProgress?
Why is ABC's blog more reputable than ThinkProgress?
:I believe we can use common sense here and recognize that while ThinkProgress can be a source of certain facts, they exist to disseminate opinion, and that backing up assertions from a more mainstream source is something that makes the article stronger. This is about the topic of Graeme Frost, not about whether CAP gets credit. Please read WP:RS. --Dhartung | Talk 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call "common sense" is simply your bias. -- 71.102.136.107 07:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to tell me what my bias is, O wise and all-knowing anon? My bias, as I see it, is in favor of stronger sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 03:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added back in 67.98.206.2 removal of ThinkProgress information 

message: I removed the quote as I don't see much substance in it.  Instead I added a one line summary which in my view is fair and neutral.  Someone who think the quote is informative please explain why.  Mhym 03:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is your edit anything other than worse? The alleged email seems to suggest the interest on behalf of GOP in the ongoing controversy.  Your edit removes the primary source, the email itself, and substitutes it with a watered down description and your conclusion.  Which treats the reader as a rational adult able to come to his own conclusions, showing the reader the actual email, or not showing the reader the actual email and substituting it with a watered down 2nd party description with your proffered conclusion?  Showing the reader the email is not POV.  Offering a conclusion with a weak description is in fact a POV edit.  What are you saving by removing the email?  Bytes on a disk?  Bandwidth?  What are you adding by substituting your edit? 130.76.64.16 05:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the answer is here: WP:NOT#REPOSITORY.  In other words, if the quote does not contribute the  new original info we should not have it.  The alleged email (remember, NPOV - just because one source claims something true does not immediately make it so, thus alleged) has nothing new other than the criticism of Frost family mentioned in the article earlier.  What is potentially interesting is that GOP official cares.  I personally am not sure that's notable (Malkin or Time care even more - they wrote long article on the subject.  So?  Why should I care what they care about?  I don't read nor respect either.)  But that's a matter of opinion.  If you think it follows WP:Notability, ok then.  Someone will come to this page a month later who never heard of the story and be able to make an impartial judgment.  Remember: all edits here are temporary.  Mhym 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alleged email?  Please visit the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page.  On that page so called "alleged" emails are discussed left and right and no one removes them.  In many ways, I agree with you and think that alleged emails are highly dubious.  But that's not what you anyway, and you still haven't explained why a watered down description with your watered down conclusion is in any sense better than offering the actual alleged email.  Blah blah blah not repository?  Why not just remove the ENTIRE article and instead put in your watered down synopsis with a watered down conclusion of what YOU think people should feel about this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: If TIME and everyone agrees the this controversy arose by the icwhatudo post at freerepublic, how is it not germane to link to THAT post at the free republic? 130.76.64.16 05:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, the post is germane but it must be properly introduced as a topic unto itself, not as a source. Since there is now a TIME magazine quote that performs that function, the link should not be a problem.--Dhartung | Talk 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added back in link to freerepublic post 

message: If I were this kid, or his parents, I would not want his a wikipedia article named about me that doesn't describe any of my other likes or dislikes.
I think this article should be renamed to something like:
Graeme Frost Controversy
SCHIP Controversy
Anatomy of a Smear Campaign, Teh Graeme Frost Smears
Seriously, this article is not a biography of Frost and should be renamed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Are we going to make Wikipedia entries for every person that makes the news?  This article should be used to expand the S-CHIP entry or used in a new article about the S-CHIP controversy.Euphgeek 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who created this article, I disagree.  The notability of Graeme Frost is clear.  The Google test which I normally use gives 1.4 mln hits, many of them in popular and reliable sources.  The readers might want to know about the person, thus WP should have the article.  Whether the current content of the article is relevant is a different question, which I think should be seriously discussed.  I would suggest that the controversy surrounding Frost family is relevant, while the "controversy around the controversy" (see partisan politics section) is not. Hopefully someone with a NPOV will remove this section.  Mhym 03:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we shouldn't provide any information on him, but the only information on the page has to do with the S-CHIP controversy.  It's not a biography page, which is what one would expect on a page dedicated solely to one person.  Another question you might ask yourself is, what relevance will this person have in five years?  Or even one year?  Euphgeek 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is  about Mr. Frost.  If you think it has extraneous info, be bold and remove it!  As for the relevance you are not serious.  What relevance will Kevin Federline have in five years?  Remember, we report present and past as WP:NOT#CBALL.  Mhym 07:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it has extraneous info, I think it has too little info to be a biography.  Kevin Federline's article is a biography.  Graeme Frost's is not.  I think this article should not be named after him but be a subsection on the controversy itself.  Euphgeek 14:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not about Graeme Frost, and should be renamed 

message: Is that the right thing to do?
Also, thanks to whomever removed my sig from the article.  Sign the talk, not the article.  Sign the talk, not the article.  Sign the talk, not the article.
12.191.143.61 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I put the quotes in to the quotation from WHAS 11, because that part came directly from their article. 

message: ThinkProgress had the story first.  They had the email.  They stated this.  They have a budget as large as CATO.  They are a respected organization.  So what does wikiality do?  It first removes their link because they are not reliable.  Then when it is proven that they were correct, their link is removed because it is redundant.  
It's bullshit POV editing and wikiality on the part of the Wikepedia. 71.39.78.68 00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's complete crap to remove the link to ThinkProgress 

message: There is no liberal in front to Krugman, etc.  No need to qualify Steyn either.  If you have strong opinions on the subject, please discuss here before editing.  Mhym (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steyn 

message: As a personal friend of Graeme and his parent's I can say that his actual name is Fredrick Frost. Graeme being his middle na,e.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.88.186 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Graeme Frost. 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/20071011152809/http://democrats.org/a/2007/09/twelve-year-old.php to http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/09/twelve-year-old.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011015546/http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/chip/index.html to http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/chip/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011152809/http://democrats.org/a/2007/09/twelve-year-old.php to http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/09/twelve-year-old.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017051433/http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/101607whasmjdTopMcConnell.177d6f3a0.html to http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/101607whasmjdTopMcConnell.177d6f3a0.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified