Talk:Eric Greif/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Eric Greif. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sourcing

Re this edit: WP:V is perfectly clear that any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, especially as it has been here a year and no-one has provided that yet. It's not lost - anyone can read the past version and replace the material once a source is found. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And this edit: "stop removing well known FACTS (such as the managing of Schuldiner and Death); sources CAN be found" So find them, and then the material can go back in. Writing in capitals doesn't make it any more true. Go read WP:V. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I read it and comprehend it, but that doesn't mean those things can't be verified and they will be. Facts may not be important to you but it is a well-known fact that Greif managed Chuck Schuldiner/Death and to deny that is ridiculous. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that (although it's hardly a well-known fact outside a particular interest group) but there's far more there than just that one statement. It's not that facts aren't important to me; it's that appeal to personal authority on factual accuracy is not how Wikipedia works. "Verifiability, not truth". After a year, it's time to verify or remove. One option would be to copy the unverified parts of the text here to the Talk page, and move sections back as and when verification is found. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea to me and I'm glad to see another responsible editor with some experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policy coming in here. (Ricky 81682 has also been in here trying to clean things up.) I have been saying the same thing. Find the sources and the material can be put back in. Shouldn't be too hard huh? A few google searches I would think. Heck, in the time that it took for this discussion, half the article could have been sourced. That is, if the sources actually exist. But you see, that is the problem. They don't exist. I know, I have looked. And looked. And looked. As, I'm sure the subject of the autobiography has looked also. I mean I'm sure he would love to find some sources out there, so he could get some solid verification posted and everybody would shut up and leave his page alone.Jackmantas (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK: I've created a working draft for review - see the section below. But please, if you want to contribute productively, quit the diatribes. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the only source for the existing article as it now stands is an interview with Mr. Grief taken from a fansite. According to Wikipedia policy, this does not qualify as a credible, unbiased source. Respectfully, Jackmantas (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As an e-zine, Sleazeroxx is fairly low on the usual scale of reliability, but these things need to be tempered wth common sense. The problem with fansites is unattributed information, but the interview cited is clear in its attribution, and makes no claims other than to be reporting what Eric Greif said. I think it's OK as a source for what he says about himself. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Um

I have no interest in wading into the edit war this page appears to be atrracting but I'm struggling to see the notability here... nothing is really asserted, and certainly nothing is cited to a reliable source. I don't think it's a hoax, but it is certainly not encyclopedic. Looks like AfD fodder to me. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason for an edit war except for some editors failing to grasp that WP:V is a core policy, and thinking that restoring material with the assertion that it's FACT - or should I say FÄCT? - is a suitable substitute. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because those things can and will be verified. As far as notability the article is plenty notable. Greif managed Chuck Schuldiner and Death and that alone makes him notable, never mind all the other music work that he's done with famous bands, his relation to a famous author, and legal work. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Eric Greif/Workspace

Working draft for verification created with "citation required" tags. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that works well. Every article shoyuld have a "sandbox"-like workpage. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have an archive page?

I would like to question why we have an archive page. I don't see any reasoning for it, the page was not that large. Also, it would be helpful for newer editors to see what has been discussed already. On top of all that, many of the discussions on the archived page were extremely recent. I think we need to reach a consensus on this archiving if it is to stand. A Sniper, from the history of this page I see that you are the user that did the archiving. Would you care to come forward and discuss (civily of course please) your rationale for archiving? Jackmantas (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: COI notice and recent edit war

Dissolve, who originally made the COI query, has now closed the matter as 'resolved' (see here). Admin Ricky81682 started the pattern of re-write with citations, and Gordonofcartoon was kind enough to create a working draft to assist. Blizzard Beast has asserted that source material will be cited should additions to what is currently there be made, just like with any Wikipedia page. Archiving was wholly appropriate as the matters raised previously RE: the COI notice have now been dealt with and the entire article was scratched by an admin, and that admin has started the re-write. Archiving was also a way to deal with the WP:NPA issues without need for deletions. Respectfully, A Sniper (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed. Now we need to work on the workspace above and find sources. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Some are already available in the links section, and just need adding in (e.g. Canadian Bar Association). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Source for involvement with Death and C.S.; Talk:Eric Greif/Workspace2

I just found a good source: http://www.emptywords.org/BANDPerryGrayson.htm. "EmptyWords is the official Death/Control Denied/Chuck Schuldiner website." So it's reliable enough. If you go to that link you'll see a comprehensive write-up talking about the history of Death. Eric Greif is mentioned several times (incl. quotes from Greif [among others]). It is obvious if you read the article that Greif played a role in Death with Chuck Schuldiner. I took it upon myself to seach that whole document and took out all the things involving Eric Greif and put them here. There you will see the rest of what I had to say as well. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Goddamnit, all these people fucked with this page, ripping out all this good info, then when I provide a bunch of info at this second workspace, suddenly no one does anything. You cared enough to tear this article up taking out all the "bad" stuff, but not enough to make it good or improve it. If people don't start adding stuff back in I may just go back and add all the old stuff back in that people deleted. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Eric Greif/Workspace says perfectly clearly to go ahead and add material to the article when you find citation - not find it and then complain that others haven't added it for you. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I will at some point if no one does. But I'm not the one who ripped all these things out of the article. You'd think that those people would want to help, but besides a few edits they just saw fit to reduce the article to the way it is now and not try and help it. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)