![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
I'm concerned that this page refers to "many surprisingly accurate, astute forecasts" without providing any documentation. I think this should be cut. Anyone? Palaverist 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Cut it" or provide some strong examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.100.40 ( talk) 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Fordmadoxfraud added a peacock template to this article. The user may not wish to directly improve the article but providing specifics would be helpful. Which phrases/words/paragraphs did you find promotional without imparting any real information ? I'm reading the peacock template info now and the list of words and phrases to look for is daunting. "Peacock terms" - clever. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The subject has been in touch with me complaining about the recent removals. I explained that the promotional blurbs were against policy and he understands this. But he asserts that his musical career is notable and I agree. Being a member of a notable band which has its own article, Worldwide Entertainment War is notable. So is having written a song on a Jefferson Starship album. So the problem is sourcing, not notability.
I have suggested that he create an account and supply sources here on the talk pages, as I don't currently have the bandwidth to do the research. Rather than remove the material again, which is neither negative or disputed, please consider looking for sources instead.
Thanks! Skyerise ( talk) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Let's discuss proposed revisions here. I'd like to start with a couple of changes I made yesterday but which User:Drmies reverted. These are the two places where I removed a citation needed tag. In the intro I replaced it with two web citations pointing to articles from the Monterey County Weekly and the Weekly Alibi. These articles contain published statements on the duration and distribution size of Brezsny's astrology column. I assumed this was what the citation needed was referencing. If there is a reading of this that indicates otherwise then please clarify. Otherwise, I do not see any need to revert that edit and we should retain those references. The other citation needed was simply removed since I think it was placed there prior to the Wikilink to World Entertainment War where the page on the band lists Brezsny as the a member. If you believe a citation is needed could you explain why? It is, of course, easy enough to find references for Brezsny's membership in the band. We could just add those. If we can come to consensus on these two issues then we can quickly move on to additional issues. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 20:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Drmies asserts that the phrase "Brezsny is a well-known horoscope columnist, author, and singer/songwriter ..." is puffery. I assume it is the use of "well-known" that is perceived as puffery. Should we remove "well-known" or is it in fact true and verifiable that Brezsny is well-known and that is not, in fact, puffery? Are there other instances of perceived puffery in the article we should also consider revising? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 19:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Drmies deleted the subsection on "Articles" in the Bibliography without bothering to discuss it here first. In the edit comment he states "i'm fine with edit-warring over this: this is just promotion. we don't link articles unless they are provably special, and a bunch of these are just websites", apparently preferring to propose an edit war rather than discuss on the talk page first. It may in fact be the case that the Articles subsection of the Bibliography section needed to be modified, deleted, or moved to an "External Links" section. What is the policy on bibliographical information on authors with respect to published online articles? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 19:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Drmies added several multiple issues templates including the Undisclosed payments template which states that "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." What evidence or indication is there to believe that this article is being edited in return for undisclosed payments? Isn't the addition of this template, without conferring on the talk page first and without any evidence or indication that this may be the case, isn't that very addition in that manner a violation of the assumption of good faith? Do you have any evidence that would lead one to believe this is the case? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 19:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Yunshui made significant changes earlier today to the article without joining the proposed changes discussion here. Please, let's collaborate on improving this article and discuss proposed changes here. I have not yet reviewed these most recent changes but my previous experience editing has lead me to believe that a collaborative effort produces the best results. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
discogs and allmusic (both usergenerated content) are still used to source a substantial part of the BLP. But let's examine the other sources
None of these strike me as particularly reliable for a BLP, especially since Rob Brezsny is a featured astrologist in metroactive.com. @ Dweller: Please explain why you think these sources are reliable enough for a BLP. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 11:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Johnuniq. If you think that notability isn't established, take it to AfD. Otherwise, you're being excessive by restoring those tags. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Is Brezsny's book "Pronoia is the Antidote for Paranoia" the first and only book on the subject of pronoia? I cannot find another. Of course, it's difficult to prove uniqueness - all I can say thus far is that any other books on pronoia are well hidden from public view or anyway not easily discovered. If in fact Brezsny's title is the first and only book on pronoia this would add to any claim of notability. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? How should one best go about determining and framing this? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 17:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The subject of the article wrote, produced, and contributed to the soundtrack of the film The Drivetime. I added that to the article but my edit was reverted by User:Beyond My Ken with the comment that the source was unreliable, I should find another source and post it here. The source I used was Vertical Pool ( http://www.verticalpool.com/drivetime.html ) There is an entry at IMDb that lists Brezsny as writer. I believe Wikipedia considers IMDb to be user generated content. If so then I doubt this will suffice. Does anyone have an acceptable source for this? Why is Vertical Pool considered unreliable? Also, Brezsny had a role in the 1994 movie Being Human (he played the TV Man-Psychic) but that also is difficult to source other than IMDb. Any help? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 15:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Brezsny contributed to the writing and soundtrack of the science fiction film ''[[The Drivetime]]''.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://archive.bampfa.berkeley.edu/film/FN13178 | title=Film Programs - Size Matters Part Ii: Feature-Length Experimental Video, ''The Drivetime'' Antero Alli w/ Rob Brezsny U.S., 1995 | publisher=[[Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive]] | accessdate=2018-07-22}}</ref>
Brezsny contributed to the writing and soundtrack of the 1995 [[science fiction film|science fiction]] [[independent film]] ''[[The Drivetime]]''.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://archive.bampfa.berkeley.edu/film/FN13178| title=Film Programs: Size Matters Part Ii: Feature-Length Experimental Video: The Drivetime| last=Seid | first=Steve |date=ndg | publisher=[[Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive]] | accessdate=July 22, 2018}}</ref>
User:JzG, an editor with a great deal more experience than I, deleted the citation to the Alibi Weekly with the comment that it is not WP:RS. That is, he believes the Alibi Weekly is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Guy, can you explain to us how you make that determination? I added the citation and, to my view, the Alibi Weekly qualifies as a reliable source. It is a local Albuquerque, New Mexico weekly news and entertainment newspaper, the web site being the online version of the print version. The Alibi Weekly is a member of both the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies and the National Newspaper Association. More info on the publication, staff, etc at https://alibi.com/index.php?scn=contacts Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 21:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I am trying to improve this article with better sources, I added reliable citations (some included quotes, showing how the support the statement on WP) and they are reverted quickly without any discussion or acknowledgement. The agressive policing of citations is uncivil editing behavior and does not follow Wikipedia:Etiquette. Please assume good faith and use the talk page, if you are confused or feel the need to have more information. These are the deleted links, [3], [4] Jooojay ( talk) 05:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
While Brezsny's use of psychobabble in his statement is instructive, the source in no respect supports the added statement "His astrology writings generally avoid absolute predictions".Both reverts were justified. If more junk gets added to this article, it will be just as quickly removed. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)No one, of course, knows what will happen to Herr Trump during the eclipse, but Rob Brezsny, author of The Stranger's Free Will Astrology column, said there could be a death of some sort—though not, unfortunately, a literal one.
"I don't like to make absolute predictions, but this could result in an ego death," Brezsny told me. "In a normal person, that could be a good thing, because it would relieve that person of illusions and delusions that he has about himself. But in Trump's case, there could be a shattering." The kind of man who reads a folder of positive reviews about himself twice a day doesn't seem all that susceptible to an ego shattering, but, Brezsny added, "anyone else who is ridiculed as much as Trump is would probably have gone insane by now. The eclipse may portend a climax to the humiliation."
Now that there are quite a few citations for this fairly brief biography, can we remove the needed sources tag? And, so far as I can tell, the only remaining ref not considered reliable by Wikipedia is the citation of Discogs, THE most reliable source for music discography on the planet, ever. Any collector will tell you Discogs is far superior to AllMusic or any other online or print resource when cataloging music. Discogs even has the matrix numbers for vinyl. Try finding that on AllMusic. I get it that Wikipedia considers blogs and other user generated content as unreliable but Discogs is crowd sourced and pretty much self correcting. Much better than AllMusic and AllMusic is considered reliable. So, I cannot bring myself to delete a Discogs ref, that will have to be one of you. When that is gone though, we can remove the other tag, the unreliable sources template. Right? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 15:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The article has seen an editorial flurry (over 75 edits) in the last 2 weeks after minimal editing for nearly 4 years. Sections have been removed and now all but the introductory summary is stuffed into the single "Career" section. The Career section consists of brief summaries of several distinct careers - musical, writing, astrology columnist, film. There are several random out of context quotes thrown in, and some editorial reviews. I suggest separate sections on Career, Critical reception, and Quotes with the Career section possibly split into subsections if enough material can be included to warrant this. In addition, when including a quote it is good writing habit to provide any needed context. For instance, the quote on genocide of the imagination only provides the reader with the last line of a quote from the Times - unless the reader also visits the reference to get the full quote they probably would not understand. It should be:
So much of what happens in your life is stimulated by what you think is going to happen. I want readers to use their imagination to cook up new responses to the events in their lives. I'm on a mission to save people from the genocide of the imagination.
Finally, the article has swung from pro-Brezsny to predominantly anti-Brezsny, neither of which is what we want. Let's aim for an objective representation, including well sourced critical review of both a positive and negative nature. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 16:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This source is cited in the article but the review omitted. Including negative reviews and omitting positive reviews would, in my opinion, indicate either bias or ignorance. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 18:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)With a blend of spontaneous poetry, feisty politics, and fanciful put-on, Brezsny breathes new life into the tabloid mummy of zodiac advice columns.
Brezsny uses first-person narrative in his horoscope columns, as well as a more literary approach than conventional horoscopes use.[3] In the 1970s and 1980s, Brezsny was a singer and songwriter for local Santa Cruz, California bands and then, in the early 1990s, for the band World Entertainment War,[6] for whom Brezsny wrote the song "Dark Ages", which was later recorded by Jefferson Starship for their 1995 album Deep Space / Virgin Sky.[7][8] Jefferson Starship also recorded the World Entertainment War song "In A Crisis" on their 2008 album Jefferson's Tree of Liberty.[9] Brezsny contributed to the writing and soundtrack of the 1995 science fiction independent film The Drivetime.[10] Brezsny is author of the books Images Are Dangerous (1985);[11] The Televisionary Oracle (2000),[12] a novel;[13] and a self-help book,[14] Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia: How the Whole World Is Conspiring To Shower You with Blessings (2005, rev.2009), which derives its name from the concept of pronoia.[15][16]
I removed the Trump prediction from the article per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. This may have been slightly interesting 4 years ago, but it has no enduring significance. It feels like a random and irrelevant digression in an otherwise to-the-point bio. My edit, however, was reverted. I still stand by the opinion that it doesn't belong in the article, however. Brezsny expresses opinions about celebrities on a daily basis. Why is this one important enough to devote 18% of his biography to? Kaldari ( talk) 06:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I predict the present. I don't believe in predicting the future. [6]
Some people believe unquestioningly in the truth and power of astrology. They imagine it's an exact science that can unfailingly discern character and predict the future. Other people believe all astrology is nonsense. They think that everyone who uses it is deluded or stupid. I say that both of these groups are wrong. Both have a simplistic, uninformed perspective. The more correct view is that some astrology is nonsense and some is a potent psychological tool. [7]
![]() |
Good morning.
I am Springnuts, a formerly uninvolved editor. Fwiw I have not previously edited this article, nor have I (afik) interacted with either of the editors involved. What follows is my opinion – no more and no less. You are welcome to like or dislike it; and to agree or disagree. If it does not help to resolve the disagreement then you might try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. User:Kaldari, who as far as I can see has not previously edited this article, removed some material, citing WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS in a detailed edit summary. This sort of summary is most helpful. 20 minutes later User:Beyond My Ken, who has had significant interaction with this article over the years reverted the edit, with the somewhat obscure edit summary “If a person wishes to mke (sic) an idiot of themselves in public, who are we to stop them”. See WP:REVEXP and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I find this sort of summary unhelpful: it did not address the justifications given by User:Kaldari, and the hostile tone of the wording, together with the speed of the revert, and the fact that User:Beyond My Ken themselves inserted the material we are concerned with [ [8]] suggests (to me at any rate) a “knee-jerk” reaction. It is easy, but unhelpful, to feel proprietorial about articles we have spent time editing. iaw “ Bold Revert Discuss, User:Beyond My Ken might have taken the issue to the talk page and engaged with the WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS questions. They did not, but a few hours later User:Kaldari did. This is the correct place to discuss whether the material is or is not noteworthy. User:Beyond My Ken replied on the talk page, but with only brief engagement with the issues raised. Imo • “Because it received press attention” concedes the WP:NOTNEWS point. • “Because Trump is not just of the past, he's still in the present and (possibly) our future” seems to add little. • “Brezsny's comment is a reflection on his way of thinking, which is not given due attention in the article otherwise” does attempt to engage with WP:UNDUE, but only by moving the User:Kaldari responded to the points raised. The points made seem, imo, to be reasonable. At this point User:Beyond My Ken stopped engaging in the discussion. Almost a fortnight later User:Kaldari again removed the material, with the useful edit summary reading: “Removing quote about Trump per Talk page. If you still disagree feel free to revert and discuss further.” This is clearly not inappropriate editing, because of the clear invitation to revert and discuss. A few hours later User:Beyond My Ken reverted with the helpful (and I think accurate) summary “no consensus for this edit”. Back on the talk page User:Beyond My Ken still did not engage with the issues, but made what comes across as (though was perhaps not meant as) an aggressive comment designed to block the issue and threaten the other editor:
User:Kaldari thence took the issue to WP:3O; [ [9]] an entirely appropriate move. Please note that it is recommended that the filing editor notifies the second editor about the request. In my opinion the material is inappropriate as WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. @ User:Beyond My Ken, I do encourage you to edit in a considered and civil way. With all good wishes and respect to both editors, |
I spoke with the subject of this article, and he feels that his proposed corrections were rejected by editors of the page. Do firsthand corrections not merit inclusion? Cjcollier ( talk) 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
I'm concerned that this page refers to "many surprisingly accurate, astute forecasts" without providing any documentation. I think this should be cut. Anyone? Palaverist 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Cut it" or provide some strong examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.100.40 ( talk) 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Fordmadoxfraud added a peacock template to this article. The user may not wish to directly improve the article but providing specifics would be helpful. Which phrases/words/paragraphs did you find promotional without imparting any real information ? I'm reading the peacock template info now and the list of words and phrases to look for is daunting. "Peacock terms" - clever. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The subject has been in touch with me complaining about the recent removals. I explained that the promotional blurbs were against policy and he understands this. But he asserts that his musical career is notable and I agree. Being a member of a notable band which has its own article, Worldwide Entertainment War is notable. So is having written a song on a Jefferson Starship album. So the problem is sourcing, not notability.
I have suggested that he create an account and supply sources here on the talk pages, as I don't currently have the bandwidth to do the research. Rather than remove the material again, which is neither negative or disputed, please consider looking for sources instead.
Thanks! Skyerise ( talk) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Let's discuss proposed revisions here. I'd like to start with a couple of changes I made yesterday but which User:Drmies reverted. These are the two places where I removed a citation needed tag. In the intro I replaced it with two web citations pointing to articles from the Monterey County Weekly and the Weekly Alibi. These articles contain published statements on the duration and distribution size of Brezsny's astrology column. I assumed this was what the citation needed was referencing. If there is a reading of this that indicates otherwise then please clarify. Otherwise, I do not see any need to revert that edit and we should retain those references. The other citation needed was simply removed since I think it was placed there prior to the Wikilink to World Entertainment War where the page on the band lists Brezsny as the a member. If you believe a citation is needed could you explain why? It is, of course, easy enough to find references for Brezsny's membership in the band. We could just add those. If we can come to consensus on these two issues then we can quickly move on to additional issues. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 20:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Drmies asserts that the phrase "Brezsny is a well-known horoscope columnist, author, and singer/songwriter ..." is puffery. I assume it is the use of "well-known" that is perceived as puffery. Should we remove "well-known" or is it in fact true and verifiable that Brezsny is well-known and that is not, in fact, puffery? Are there other instances of perceived puffery in the article we should also consider revising? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 19:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Drmies deleted the subsection on "Articles" in the Bibliography without bothering to discuss it here first. In the edit comment he states "i'm fine with edit-warring over this: this is just promotion. we don't link articles unless they are provably special, and a bunch of these are just websites", apparently preferring to propose an edit war rather than discuss on the talk page first. It may in fact be the case that the Articles subsection of the Bibliography section needed to be modified, deleted, or moved to an "External Links" section. What is the policy on bibliographical information on authors with respect to published online articles? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 19:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Drmies added several multiple issues templates including the Undisclosed payments template which states that "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." What evidence or indication is there to believe that this article is being edited in return for undisclosed payments? Isn't the addition of this template, without conferring on the talk page first and without any evidence or indication that this may be the case, isn't that very addition in that manner a violation of the assumption of good faith? Do you have any evidence that would lead one to believe this is the case? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 19:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Yunshui made significant changes earlier today to the article without joining the proposed changes discussion here. Please, let's collaborate on improving this article and discuss proposed changes here. I have not yet reviewed these most recent changes but my previous experience editing has lead me to believe that a collaborative effort produces the best results. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
discogs and allmusic (both usergenerated content) are still used to source a substantial part of the BLP. But let's examine the other sources
None of these strike me as particularly reliable for a BLP, especially since Rob Brezsny is a featured astrologist in metroactive.com. @ Dweller: Please explain why you think these sources are reliable enough for a BLP. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 11:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Johnuniq. If you think that notability isn't established, take it to AfD. Otherwise, you're being excessive by restoring those tags. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Is Brezsny's book "Pronoia is the Antidote for Paranoia" the first and only book on the subject of pronoia? I cannot find another. Of course, it's difficult to prove uniqueness - all I can say thus far is that any other books on pronoia are well hidden from public view or anyway not easily discovered. If in fact Brezsny's title is the first and only book on pronoia this would add to any claim of notability. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? How should one best go about determining and framing this? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 17:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The subject of the article wrote, produced, and contributed to the soundtrack of the film The Drivetime. I added that to the article but my edit was reverted by User:Beyond My Ken with the comment that the source was unreliable, I should find another source and post it here. The source I used was Vertical Pool ( http://www.verticalpool.com/drivetime.html ) There is an entry at IMDb that lists Brezsny as writer. I believe Wikipedia considers IMDb to be user generated content. If so then I doubt this will suffice. Does anyone have an acceptable source for this? Why is Vertical Pool considered unreliable? Also, Brezsny had a role in the 1994 movie Being Human (he played the TV Man-Psychic) but that also is difficult to source other than IMDb. Any help? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 15:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Brezsny contributed to the writing and soundtrack of the science fiction film ''[[The Drivetime]]''.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://archive.bampfa.berkeley.edu/film/FN13178 | title=Film Programs - Size Matters Part Ii: Feature-Length Experimental Video, ''The Drivetime'' Antero Alli w/ Rob Brezsny U.S., 1995 | publisher=[[Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive]] | accessdate=2018-07-22}}</ref>
Brezsny contributed to the writing and soundtrack of the 1995 [[science fiction film|science fiction]] [[independent film]] ''[[The Drivetime]]''.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://archive.bampfa.berkeley.edu/film/FN13178| title=Film Programs: Size Matters Part Ii: Feature-Length Experimental Video: The Drivetime| last=Seid | first=Steve |date=ndg | publisher=[[Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive]] | accessdate=July 22, 2018}}</ref>
User:JzG, an editor with a great deal more experience than I, deleted the citation to the Alibi Weekly with the comment that it is not WP:RS. That is, he believes the Alibi Weekly is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Guy, can you explain to us how you make that determination? I added the citation and, to my view, the Alibi Weekly qualifies as a reliable source. It is a local Albuquerque, New Mexico weekly news and entertainment newspaper, the web site being the online version of the print version. The Alibi Weekly is a member of both the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies and the National Newspaper Association. More info on the publication, staff, etc at https://alibi.com/index.php?scn=contacts Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 21:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I am trying to improve this article with better sources, I added reliable citations (some included quotes, showing how the support the statement on WP) and they are reverted quickly without any discussion or acknowledgement. The agressive policing of citations is uncivil editing behavior and does not follow Wikipedia:Etiquette. Please assume good faith and use the talk page, if you are confused or feel the need to have more information. These are the deleted links, [3], [4] Jooojay ( talk) 05:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
While Brezsny's use of psychobabble in his statement is instructive, the source in no respect supports the added statement "His astrology writings generally avoid absolute predictions".Both reverts were justified. If more junk gets added to this article, it will be just as quickly removed. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)No one, of course, knows what will happen to Herr Trump during the eclipse, but Rob Brezsny, author of The Stranger's Free Will Astrology column, said there could be a death of some sort—though not, unfortunately, a literal one.
"I don't like to make absolute predictions, but this could result in an ego death," Brezsny told me. "In a normal person, that could be a good thing, because it would relieve that person of illusions and delusions that he has about himself. But in Trump's case, there could be a shattering." The kind of man who reads a folder of positive reviews about himself twice a day doesn't seem all that susceptible to an ego shattering, but, Brezsny added, "anyone else who is ridiculed as much as Trump is would probably have gone insane by now. The eclipse may portend a climax to the humiliation."
Now that there are quite a few citations for this fairly brief biography, can we remove the needed sources tag? And, so far as I can tell, the only remaining ref not considered reliable by Wikipedia is the citation of Discogs, THE most reliable source for music discography on the planet, ever. Any collector will tell you Discogs is far superior to AllMusic or any other online or print resource when cataloging music. Discogs even has the matrix numbers for vinyl. Try finding that on AllMusic. I get it that Wikipedia considers blogs and other user generated content as unreliable but Discogs is crowd sourced and pretty much self correcting. Much better than AllMusic and AllMusic is considered reliable. So, I cannot bring myself to delete a Discogs ref, that will have to be one of you. When that is gone though, we can remove the other tag, the unreliable sources template. Right? Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 15:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The article has seen an editorial flurry (over 75 edits) in the last 2 weeks after minimal editing for nearly 4 years. Sections have been removed and now all but the introductory summary is stuffed into the single "Career" section. The Career section consists of brief summaries of several distinct careers - musical, writing, astrology columnist, film. There are several random out of context quotes thrown in, and some editorial reviews. I suggest separate sections on Career, Critical reception, and Quotes with the Career section possibly split into subsections if enough material can be included to warrant this. In addition, when including a quote it is good writing habit to provide any needed context. For instance, the quote on genocide of the imagination only provides the reader with the last line of a quote from the Times - unless the reader also visits the reference to get the full quote they probably would not understand. It should be:
So much of what happens in your life is stimulated by what you think is going to happen. I want readers to use their imagination to cook up new responses to the events in their lives. I'm on a mission to save people from the genocide of the imagination.
Finally, the article has swung from pro-Brezsny to predominantly anti-Brezsny, neither of which is what we want. Let's aim for an objective representation, including well sourced critical review of both a positive and negative nature. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 16:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This source is cited in the article but the review omitted. Including negative reviews and omitting positive reviews would, in my opinion, indicate either bias or ignorance. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 18:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)With a blend of spontaneous poetry, feisty politics, and fanciful put-on, Brezsny breathes new life into the tabloid mummy of zodiac advice columns.
Brezsny uses first-person narrative in his horoscope columns, as well as a more literary approach than conventional horoscopes use.[3] In the 1970s and 1980s, Brezsny was a singer and songwriter for local Santa Cruz, California bands and then, in the early 1990s, for the band World Entertainment War,[6] for whom Brezsny wrote the song "Dark Ages", which was later recorded by Jefferson Starship for their 1995 album Deep Space / Virgin Sky.[7][8] Jefferson Starship also recorded the World Entertainment War song "In A Crisis" on their 2008 album Jefferson's Tree of Liberty.[9] Brezsny contributed to the writing and soundtrack of the 1995 science fiction independent film The Drivetime.[10] Brezsny is author of the books Images Are Dangerous (1985);[11] The Televisionary Oracle (2000),[12] a novel;[13] and a self-help book,[14] Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia: How the Whole World Is Conspiring To Shower You with Blessings (2005, rev.2009), which derives its name from the concept of pronoia.[15][16]
I removed the Trump prediction from the article per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. This may have been slightly interesting 4 years ago, but it has no enduring significance. It feels like a random and irrelevant digression in an otherwise to-the-point bio. My edit, however, was reverted. I still stand by the opinion that it doesn't belong in the article, however. Brezsny expresses opinions about celebrities on a daily basis. Why is this one important enough to devote 18% of his biography to? Kaldari ( talk) 06:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I predict the present. I don't believe in predicting the future. [6]
Some people believe unquestioningly in the truth and power of astrology. They imagine it's an exact science that can unfailingly discern character and predict the future. Other people believe all astrology is nonsense. They think that everyone who uses it is deluded or stupid. I say that both of these groups are wrong. Both have a simplistic, uninformed perspective. The more correct view is that some astrology is nonsense and some is a potent psychological tool. [7]
![]() |
Good morning.
I am Springnuts, a formerly uninvolved editor. Fwiw I have not previously edited this article, nor have I (afik) interacted with either of the editors involved. What follows is my opinion – no more and no less. You are welcome to like or dislike it; and to agree or disagree. If it does not help to resolve the disagreement then you might try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. User:Kaldari, who as far as I can see has not previously edited this article, removed some material, citing WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS in a detailed edit summary. This sort of summary is most helpful. 20 minutes later User:Beyond My Ken, who has had significant interaction with this article over the years reverted the edit, with the somewhat obscure edit summary “If a person wishes to mke (sic) an idiot of themselves in public, who are we to stop them”. See WP:REVEXP and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I find this sort of summary unhelpful: it did not address the justifications given by User:Kaldari, and the hostile tone of the wording, together with the speed of the revert, and the fact that User:Beyond My Ken themselves inserted the material we are concerned with [ [8]] suggests (to me at any rate) a “knee-jerk” reaction. It is easy, but unhelpful, to feel proprietorial about articles we have spent time editing. iaw “ Bold Revert Discuss, User:Beyond My Ken might have taken the issue to the talk page and engaged with the WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS questions. They did not, but a few hours later User:Kaldari did. This is the correct place to discuss whether the material is or is not noteworthy. User:Beyond My Ken replied on the talk page, but with only brief engagement with the issues raised. Imo • “Because it received press attention” concedes the WP:NOTNEWS point. • “Because Trump is not just of the past, he's still in the present and (possibly) our future” seems to add little. • “Brezsny's comment is a reflection on his way of thinking, which is not given due attention in the article otherwise” does attempt to engage with WP:UNDUE, but only by moving the User:Kaldari responded to the points raised. The points made seem, imo, to be reasonable. At this point User:Beyond My Ken stopped engaging in the discussion. Almost a fortnight later User:Kaldari again removed the material, with the useful edit summary reading: “Removing quote about Trump per Talk page. If you still disagree feel free to revert and discuss further.” This is clearly not inappropriate editing, because of the clear invitation to revert and discuss. A few hours later User:Beyond My Ken reverted with the helpful (and I think accurate) summary “no consensus for this edit”. Back on the talk page User:Beyond My Ken still did not engage with the issues, but made what comes across as (though was perhaps not meant as) an aggressive comment designed to block the issue and threaten the other editor:
User:Kaldari thence took the issue to WP:3O; [ [9]] an entirely appropriate move. Please note that it is recommended that the filing editor notifies the second editor about the request. In my opinion the material is inappropriate as WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. @ User:Beyond My Ken, I do encourage you to edit in a considered and civil way. With all good wishes and respect to both editors, |
I spoke with the subject of this article, and he feels that his proposed corrections were rejected by editors of the page. Do firsthand corrections not merit inclusion? Cjcollier ( talk) 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)