Talk:Paul Graham (programmer)

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2023

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Removal of diagram

Hello, I wanted you to know that I restored Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement to his biography. You noted in your edit summary that blogs and newsletters are not reliable sources, which is generally true. However I think you may have been too hasty and literal in this case. 1) The "blog" cited is under control of the subject himself and 2) the newsletter cited is a Wikipedia newsletter explaining how Wikipedia uses his Hierarchy. I have also added a source from The Guardian. When it comes to WP:GUNREL sources we can use them provided, "...The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable." Given these arguments I'm not seeing where the sourcing is so deficient as to warrant removal.
Given some admin's using Graham's Hierarchy to set discussion tone (see User talk:Beeblebrox) it would be a shame to keep this out. If you still disagree I suggest that we start a discussion on the Paul Graham talk page and invite other editors to join in. Best regards, Blue Riband► 01:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Paul Graham is an established expert on programming, but psychology stuff? I think it's fine to use the diagram in a Wikipedia policy page, but not in his biography. The Guardian source is a bit small to make it warrant an entire section. I am still in favor of removing it here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• (also in response to thread above):

1) The threshold for simply including a given topic in an article is not as high as WP:N's threshold, which is for said topic to have its own article.

2) Not everything about a subject has to be about the main thing(s) for which the subject is notable if we have RS. (Guardian alone establishes this)

3) That said, since the concern is notability, here's another source: How to disagree well: 7 of the best and worst ways to argue, from Big Think (which Media Bias/Fact Check, FWIW, gives the highest possible rating. ).  IMO that (and the rest) are sufficient RS for our purposes.

4) And not for nothing, having it here helps both readers and editors, thereby making for a better Wikipedia.

Thus I !vote to include section, adding Big Think RS. Perhaps though, per WP:UNDUE, the section could be pruned. --Middle 8 ^privacy • _(s)talk 06:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The section comes off as as a bit out of his element, and when performing a cursory Google search, most mentions are either from his own webpage or blogs specifically quoting the wiki page (though these seem to have been from as early as 2017, so it's possible the original author pulled the info from those blogs). The diagram showing up in a Wikipedia policy pages, as pointed out by User:PhotographyEdits, isn't enough for it to warrant more than a small blurb, certainly not a third of the article's word count.

To your third point: interestingly, the Media Bias/Fact Check website you point to is classified by Wikipedia as a generally unreliable source.

And to your forth: this point is addressed in the very Wikipedia Page mentioned above WP:USEFUL Lindsey40186 (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this isn't exactly a big hitter on Google, but the threshold here isn't WP:SIRS. Google certainly turns up a good few articles and discussions, and some of those lead to this page, so the content in debate is already referenced a lot. A section heading doesn't need to have notability in its own right, as made clear in WP:NNC. There appears to be no issue of correctness. So we're left with considerations of WP:UNDUE: at the time of writing, there are under 160 words on Grahams Hierarchy (+ those in the diagram), in an article under 1200 words (excluding refs) so it's about 13% of the text content, which seems plausible. Given all that, !vote to retain section. I Chumpih ^t 04:07, 07:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In my view this is a self-promotional article, backed by self-promotional, personal website with a completely subjective taxonomy not backed by even single source from argumentation theory, conversation analysis, nor discourse analysis.

An example of name calling - I would suspect, written by the author - is "The author is a self-important dilettante". But let's be honest, isn't he?

Can someone explain why this taxonomy is even a pyramid? Maslow's justified the shape such higher levels of needs become motivating for humans after the lower levels are satisfied. Without any theoretical justification, this is just a self-promotional sham branded by it's own name. Okaminski (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm slightly struggling to parse some of the grammar in that comment, but as an argument it appears to be motivated by ironic levels of ad hominem and name calling. I agree with Chumpih. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"Paul Graham (computer programmer" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Paul Graham (computer programmer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Paul Graham (computer programmer until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)