Talk:Raegan Butcher

message: This is an entry about the poet Raegan Butcher--who is most commonly associated with the Anarchist group Crimethinc (who published his books Stone Hotel and Rusty String Quartet).
I believe I have done a good job writing and editing this entry thus far. I will continue to do so until I believe I can do no more (doubt that will happen, but you never know).
Despite being a registered Wikipedia member since November 07 (where I mostly edited articles), I still think of myself as a novice. Any advice, help, editing, or whatnot will much be appreciated!
Yours Truly,Rimbaud 2 (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work so far! If you look at some of the code, you can see the tricks I've employed so that the same reference can be used multiple times. Other minor issues are that books, albums, tv shows and other single-standing published items are italicized (while individual songs, poems etc are not), links to individual years (e.g. 2003) are not considered useful, and the IMdb and Myspace are not considered reliable sources because they are self-published and/or lack editorial/peer review (they will have to do for this article for now). These are minor issues like I said, and I congratulate you on writing a fine article thus far. I intend on nominating this article for DYK status. Regards, Skomorokh incite 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: The literary movement/genre that Butcher is most associated with is Anarchism. His style, sympathies, and publishers are aligned--if not themselves totally--with Anarchism.
If you have a reason to think this isn't so, please express it here. Otherwise, please stop deleting it from the author infobox.
Yours Truly,71.10.43.203 (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries; any idea which literary movement best characterizes Butcher's work? Skomorokh incite 00:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think punk literature sounds about right, but then I am unfamiliar with Butcher's work. Check out :Category:Literary movements for ideas. Skomorokh incite 09:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think punk literature fits well (I checked out practically all the literary movements, but none really fit but that). Thanks for the editRimbaud 2 (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Skomorokh incite 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Literary Movement

message: I have a myspace page and have been in contact with Butcher. I made him aware of the existence of this entry and he has respond with enthusiasm and intrest (and thanks us for doing an overall good job). I told him about the circumstances surrounding the info used--such as IMDB and Myspace--and have asked him to write a biography about himself to put on his official website. He has agreed to do this and says it will be up shortly.
Since I asked him to give us some more info about his background, life, influences, etc., this entry will definetly become better than ever. In anticipation--and through my own research and personal conversations with Butcher--I have put up more people he has claimed as influences. They can be found both on his Myspace (see "Books" section"),vthe acknowleges page of Rusty String Quartet (ex: Childish and Vachss are mentioned), and even his own prose (the writing style of Avant Garde Graveyard "reeks" of Bukowski and Celine).
I elect to keep the influence section of the infobox as it is until the bio is up. It shall be updated and/or changed then. And I don't see any real harm in doing so (lord knows alot of new stuff with be added and info changed when the bio goes up anyhow)Rimbaud 2 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic work, Rimbaud; I don't think anyone is going to question your adding the influences given all the good faith work you've done so far. We can't technically cite Myspace or Imdb (though we can cite his books if you want to use them), so it would be ideal to get as much as possible of our info from Butcher's standalone website. Skomorokh confer 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An announcement about whats to come for this entry

message: Well folks, it seems that Butcher has put up a new official website and myspace page. I have added the new offical site, called Raegan Butcher Media, and have kept the old one up, calling it "Previous offical site". I'll keep watch so that, if it get deleted, I'll delete the link. I have also put up the link to the official myspace page, and kept his other one up, calling it "Personal Myspace Page".Rimbaud 2 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New sites

message: The American Criminal category is, as it is currently written, supposed to be reserved for criminals by occupation whose sole claim to notability is their crime.  There's an RfC going on right now at the American Criminals category page, so the definition might change.  Nonetheless, I do not think this living person should have this label stuck to his name on WP, at least until the American Criminals category's definition is changed (if it ever is).  So I'm deleting the category from this page, at least for now. David in DC (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparantly my self-appointed super-editor for American Criminals disagrees.  What do others in the community think?  If the person doesn't fit the category, as the category stands right now, doesn't BLP require taking this perjorative category off of this living person's page?  If the RfC results in a change to the category in some far-off, nebulous future, it could be re-added.  But I don't think the pending RfC on the category requires a freeze on applying the category as currently written.  And since it's such a perjorative title, I think BLP requires deleting the category. David in DC (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is reserved for notable people who have well-sourced criminal convictions such as Butcher. John celona (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What category description are you looking at?  I'm looking at this one: "For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime, or else the person must have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed." It's here: . David in DC (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you use this language from the source-"For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial)," you see that Butcher (and anyone else convicted of a well-sourced crime) is well qualified.  The rest of the category description provides alternate phrases for those who have never been convicted. That has been the way the category has been used "from day one". I would like to clear up any ambigouity by changing the category to "incarcerated Americans" which would apply only to those who have both been convicted and imprisoned.  This would eliminate people you have expressed concern about who have gotten only probation, home confinement, fine, restitution or other none jail sentences. It would also end this tit for tat.  Either there is a verifiable source that the person was convicted and imprisoned or there isn't. John celona (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if you cut off remainder of the category definition: "...can claim notability solely because of the crime, or else the person must have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed." then it fits.  But, so far, that is not the result of the RfC.  The rule continues on past where you truncated it.  Maybe it won't, some day.  It does now.  But I was really asking for the community's opinion.  I know yours, you know mine, and both are well-stated here.  How bout letting someone else talk about it. David in DC (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sole notability for crimes is NOT the criteria for the category as anyone looking at the hundreds of names in the category can clarely see.  David makes up hiw own, invariably pro-censorship rules and then claims a one-man consensus. John celona (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The bold print is your invention as is the intersposition of the word "and" before the phrase you take the liberty to boldface.  In short, it ain't there.  Butcher's conviction and prison term is well-sourced and he belongs in the category. John celona (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the bolding is my doing.  That's why I typed "Here it is, in full, with the applicable language bolded".  That's me, pointing out that the bolding is not in the original.  I didn't interpose an "and".  Where do you see an interposed "and"?  What I've "cut-and-pasted" above is the exact language of the category definition.  Until the category definition changes, prong #1 requires sole notability. Please see thisDavid in DC (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It takes consensus to rewrite the category. Or someone can be bold and edit it themself.  It does not require further consensus to follow the policy as written.  And in the case of living persons, speedy deletion is required if this derogatory category is misapplied. The language defining the category is clear.  Unless and until it changes, it cannot be ignored piecemeal. If you don't like it, muster consensus to get it changed.David in DC (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are trying to impose your unilateral interpretation of the rule.  The interpretation you call "clear" others have found wrongheaded and puzzling, if not bizzare. See [] John celona (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With the change in the category description, the category now fits. David in DC (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Criminal