Jump to content

Talk:Eric C. Anderson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anderson photo

[edit]

Just a quick note here that someone at Space Adventures reached out to me to help them add an image for Mr. Anderson, their CEO. So whereas I do have a close connection with the subject, I am not the editor from 2006 whose editing resulted in the page's warning tag. I'm not sure that tag really serves much purpose at this point, but if I get a chance to work on this page further, it's one thing I'll see about fixing. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed expansion and replacement

[edit]

I'd like to propose a significant rewrite of this article. Like a year ago, when I added a CC-licensed photo for Mr. Anderson, I am working with his company, Space Adventures. This time, however, I will avoid direct edits and seek instead to make the case for my new draft.

I think it's a simple case: the current article is primarily a collection of short, disjointed paragraphs; one section is just a list of awards without much context; most sources are links to primary sources (official websites). Mr. Anderson actually has been profiled in many well-established science and business-oriented publications, making possible a considerably more detailed and better developed overview of his career. That's what I've written, and that's what I propose. The draft is here:

The structure of the new version is very much the same, adding more context to the development of his career and of Space Adventures specifically. It does represent a considerable expansion of material, however I have written it with careful attention to maintaining an encyclopedic tone, omitting anecdotal details unless they added to understanding of his career, and all cited to reliable, third-party sources.

I'd be more than happy to discuss any specifics of this draft. However, at such a time when independent editors agree that it is a suitable replacement (a significant improvement, I would hope) over the current version, I hope someone will merge the draft over to the mainspace. And one last point: I have disabled categories so this draft does not appear on category pages, so they will need to be re-enabled if the draft is moved. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start off by saying WELL DONE. This is perhaps the best example of someone with a conflict of interest handling it the right way. Thank you for your honesty and engagement with other editors.
I've done a quick review of your draft, and it's of high quality - again, well done. Very soon I will compare it with the existing article and merge the two together. --Drm310 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Drm310! Thanks very much for saying that, I really appreciate it. By the way: I should have posted an update here to say that I've been discussing some changes requested by Qwyrxian on the draft's Talk page. Have a look there; I think he'll want to add some more thoughts and I may need to make some more changes before getting his approval. Please feel free to share any other thoughts there, too. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After discussion and revision on the draft page, and no objections here, I've history merged over the new version, which is a significant improvement over the former version. Below is a copy of the talk page of the discussion we had at the draft's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Draft concerns

[edit]

This section was copied from User Talk:WWB Too/Eric C. Anderson, while a new version was being prepared in that user's sandbox. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC) I've only just glanced at the article so far. I noted some language that seems a but puffery, but it may be justified if reflected in the sources. More importantly, though, I'm concerned about at least one of the sources. The reference in the Bellevue Business Journal appears to be a press release to me. While it isn't explicitly listed as such, the tone of the lead combined with the fact that there's a paragraph at the end with contact information makes me fairly certain that its PR written by or on behalf of Intentional Software, which means that it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. You've referenced it quite a number of times in the article, and I think it needs to come out entirely. However, I am willing to take the matter to [{WP:RSN]], as it's not unambiguously PR. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, I agree with your points about the Bellevue Business Journal—it's a press release, all right. Fortunately, its prominence owes a bit to my habit of doubling up on sources, and I've managed to remove it without affecting verifications, save two: his undergrad magna, which is found in a number of other sources so I've updated that one, and the SmartCEO award, which I've just removed. (All changes in this diff.) I also understand your point about potential puffery; his career is an unusual one, with no shortage of superlatives to be found in profiles about him. I've tried to keep that measured, but I'm definitely open to suggestions. Please let me know what else you see. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some more concerns:
  • I think the career section, overall, has too much information about Space Adventures. That information either is or should be in the company's article, with information here strictly limited to roles he played, major things he was personally responsible for. I understand that, in some senses, this business is Anderson...but I still think we should try to draw some sort of a line closer to a bio and less of a corporate description. As an example, I think the second paragraph of "Development of the business" strays too much into corporate history. In fact, that's the main concern on this point; there are other parts with similar problems, but they're more just phrases than major chunks.
  • I personally don't like listing the backers, as in the end of "Other roles"--it seems like an indirect way to praise him in a way that's unwarranted. In Wikipedia terms, what I'd say is that listing the other people who invested in the same company is WP:UNDUE.
  • Speaking gigs: I'm not sure we need to list all of these, particularly the TE11 and Global Tourism ones, since they're sourced to those corporations; while those are reliable sources for this info, if it wasn't noteworthy enough for independent sources to mention, I don't think it's noteworthy enough for us. WEF and TED have enough independent fame that they're worth noting.
  • Reference problems: Ref 17 (Tech the future) appears to be a blog, and not one meeting either the expert exemption or the newspaper-blog exemption, so it's probably not RS. Ref 21 (the CSF page) is a deadlink; but it's a primary source anyway, and you already have another source (ref 20) for the same info. I don't like using press releases, but it's okay for this type of information.
Your thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Qwyrxian, and thanks very much. Your comments are well taken, and speak to a challenge that I faced during the development process: as you point out, Eric Anderson is the driving force behind Space Adventures, so it can be difficult to disentangle him from the firm. I had initially aimed to focus on his specific involvement, but on re-read, I think you've identified points where I did not. I've trimmed a number of sentences through the career section, including those investors and another whole paragraph, to focus better on Mr. Anderson. See this diff for details, and let me know what you think.
About sources, no problem removing the Tech the Future site; perhaps I assumed too much of its claim that it "reports on technology that shapes the future", also it's an example of my including one too many references. I hadn't noticed the CSF link was dead, but you're right, it's already covered and I pulled it.
Let me know if you see anything else worth changing, and I really appreciate the thoughtful response. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the merge, Qwyrxian. Very much appreciated. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Personal life information

[edit]

{{request edit}} In October, working on behalf of one of Mr. Anderson's companies, I proposed a new draft of this article, which was moved into place by another editor following feedback and edits (see above). Very recently, I have been re-contacted by the company to see about the possibility of removing a specific clause from the Personal life section.

Specifically, they would like to remove the clause stating that Mr. Anderson's wife is "a former concert pianist born in Russia". Their reasoning, quoted verbatim: "She says that the information is dated and does not wish to share personal items on Wikipedia." It is fair to note that the information is presumably accurate, as it came from a USA Today profile.

However, I wonder if editors here may feel that it's a reasonable request: she is not herself a public figure, and plays a very small role in this article. I know there is precedent for removing Wikipedia articles about even arguably notable figures who did not want articles about them (cf. Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt) so I wonder that applies. I don't believe Mrs. Anderson wants to disappear entirely, just that she would prefer not to be characterized by old information. Thoughts? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this is a reasonable request that we should honor. If the request were about Eric Anderson itself, I would oppose removal, because his past occupations are an important part of his encyclopedic story. We don't have a policy on this explicitly, but take a look at WP:BLPNAME; this section of WP:BLP explicitly suggests the removal of the names of family members who are otherwise "low-profile people". If we would be willing to remove a name, then I don't see why we wouldn't remove an occupation as well. Since this request comes directly from the person herself (I trust), and I don't see "a significant loss of context" (the standard that must be met to include a name or other similar info), I'll go ahead and remove it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, very cool. They'll be pleased to hear. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eric C. Anderson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric C. Anderson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_C._Anderson&oldid=1256851483"