Talk:Paul Krassner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Krassner has more credibility w/o disguised Rosencomet link

I removed Disguised Rosencomet link] as it lowers Paul Krassner's credibility to have that link in his article. Makes it look like he needs that kind of link to get by. Timmy12 22:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and have returned it. Please see admin Samir's talk page, where he states that the links to rosencomet.com are valid citations. As you know, citations are required by Wikipedia policy, so please do not remove them. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed disguised Rosencomet link: Timmy12 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Removed copies of search engine link which triggered spam filter. This was NOT a disguise: at the time, I was unaware of the policy against them.Rosencomet 16:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mad magazine

I tried to follow up on Krassner writing for Mad. I have a 1981 Super Special that has one of the pieces he claims to have written. Curiously, it omits a writer's credit. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is Paul Krassner, subject of the article. In the '50s, I wrote the script for a few pieces in Mad magazine. The first was "If Comic Strip Characters Answered Those Little Ads in the Back of Magazines." It was illustrated by Wally Wood. At that time writers were not identified by name. They were simply described as "The Usual Gang of Idiots." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.254.201 (talk)

Yes, that Krassner article for Mad has been frequently reprinted and that fact that he wrote it (among others) has been noted before. In those early days, often only the artist was credited. 203.221.12.12 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Starwood Festival

There are two articles in this Wiki article written by him about Krassner's appearances at Starwood. He has appeared at six out of the last ten Starwood Festivals and two out of the last ten WinterStars, as a visit to the ACE website can verify. He is quoted in the High Times article about Starwood. He has a story about a Starwood experience on the Starwood website. His association with the events is certainly important to him, and it is the only Neo-Pagan event he has appeared at. Pigman, IMO this is part of a campaign to eliminate as many mentions of Starwood, WinterStar and ACE as possible from Wikipedia, then eliminate their articles as well. I believe it is you that is disregarding the arbitration at this point, ignoring valid citations and eliminating perfectly acceptable information. The fact that Paul Krassner frequents an event like Starwood says a great deal about both. You know that its true. If he had been at 6 out of ten Pagan Spirit Gatherings and wrote two articles about it, wrote a story on the Circle website and commented on the event in a magazine with High Times' circulation, you would not be deleting the very mention of it. When will you be fair? Rosencomet (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea why you think I'm prejudiced in favor of Pagan Spirit Gathering and against Starwood/ACE. (Although I have to admit the PSG article looks a right mess, lacking good sources and it needs a good scrubbing of promotional language as well. I'll try to get to it soon.) What I "know" to be true has little to do with Wikipedia notability and WP:V sourcing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia depends on reliable and verifiable sources for its content, not just the personal knowledge of its contributors. Regarding Mr Krassner's attendance of Starwood/WinterStar: I subscribe to the view that notability can sometimes change depending on the perspective. For example, Mr Krassner's attendance of Starwood is most definitely notable for Starwood and its article. However, given Mr Krassner's long and varied career and achievements, his appearance at Starwood is not nearly as notable in the context of his Wikipedia article. I note that Mr Krassner's "official" bio on his web site says this: "His venues have ranged from the New Age Expo to the Skeptics Conference, from a Neo-Pagan Festival to the L.A. County Bar Association, from a Swingers Convention to the Brentwood Bakery..." So he doesn't specifically mention the events by name in his own bio while he does mention several other events by name. While an author's personal bio is, of course, not even close to the final word on what can or can't be put into a Wikipedia article, it does indicate something about how the event is viewed by him relative to his official achievements and landmarks. Cheers, Pigman☿ 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is Paul Krassner, subject of the article. I assure you that my appearances--at least half a dozen times at Starwood plus a couple at Winterstar--are important aspects of my resume', and they certainly deserve to be included in the article. It's the biggest neo-pagan festival in the country, the first and only one I've appeared at, and indeed they served as my introduction to the neo-pagan movement. I have no doubt that any of the speakers, entertainers or musicians who have performed there would feel the same way about the mention of their Starwood experiences. I should have stated "Starwood Neo-Pagan Festival" in the bio on my home page rather than just "Neo-Pagan Festival," just as I should have stated "the LifeStyles Couples Convention" rather than "a Swingers Convention" but I was merely trying to show the diversity of my venues. I have written pieces about Starwood--such as The Nation and High Times--the latest being a long piece titled "The 40th Anniversary of the Summer of Love"--and included them in my collections. My name is Paul Krassner and I approve of this message. Nyah, nyah... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.254.201 (talk)

I'm happy to have your input on this matter, Mr Krassner. Unfortunately, unless there is an issue of slander or libel with the content of the article, your input has only as much influence on the article's content as any other editor. Perhaps even less in some ways because of conflict of interest and autobiographical issues. Because there is no assurance or guarantee that you are actually Paul Krassner, the choices of what information to include in the article is dependent on verifiability and reliable sources. While Wikipedia has a policy of assuming good faith of editors, critical thought isn't discarded in that pursuit. Because of the nature of Wikipedia, anyone could say they were you. Wikipedia also has a policy governing biographies of living persons. I hope you'll enjoy editing Wikipedia. Might I recommend registering an account instead of contributing as an anonymous IP editor? Cheers, Pigman☿ 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are truly shameless, Pigman. You twist the rules all out of shape to get your way. You look at six Starwood and two WinterStar appearances, three articles published by Krassner, a story on the ACE website, and even when he himself says you are wrong and the event is notable to him, you refuse to budge an inch. You refuse to AGF that he is who he says he is, even while calling him Mr. Krassner out of the other side of your mouth. And all over the simple statement "He has been a frequent speaker at both the Starwood Festival[1] and the WinterStar Symposium. " Can anyone doubt anymore that this is not just about "verifiability" or "good editing", but a problem you have with ACE and its events? Rosencomet (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the user as "Mr Krassner" as a courtesy toward the claim, not as an affirmation of the user's identity. I can't tell who it is (nor can anyone) and it requires more than a claim to verify an identity. More accurately, I should have said "User:75.80.254.201" when I addressed the person. You should be somewhat familiar with people misrepresenting themselves on Wikipedia. WP:AGF doesn't equate to gullibility or stupidity. Considering how quickly "Mr Krassner" showed up during this incident and your past WP record, I suspect you were WP:CANVASSing for support for your position; the true identity of the user is immaterial in that case. This is a clear violation of policy and I strongly warn you against doing this again. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. It is not canvassing to contact the subject of a biographical article and inform him/her of a controversy about the content of his/her article that he/she might wish to weigh in to. It is not a violation of any policy, but IMO a courtesy to the real person most affected. I see nothing of the sort in WP:CANVASS, which says "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". Also, the true identity of the subject of an article is not immaterial under ANY circumstances. As to "autobiographical issues", autobiographical says "Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper—let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself." None of your objections based on COI can apply to statements on the talk page, and Krassner didn't write the article, so your objections on "Autobiographical" have no basis, either, nor is there any violation of biographies of living persons. In fact, that article supports the use of self-published material by the subject of the article, and accepts edits from the subject. The real question is whether you care what the subject of the article says about the notability of a fact you deleted in spite of the articles the subject has written and his appearance at six out of ten of the last annual events, or whether someone else does. And if you are going to point at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati when discussing misrepresentation on Wikipedia, you might also look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse, who you seem to have no problem working with when it comes to tagging and editing my work. Or are you accusing me of being either Ekajati or User:75.80.254.201? I can assure you I am neither, but you are welcome to compare I.P. addresses. Rosencomet (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not associated with the association, so I've got no COI. I've been to some events of theirs now and then. Krassner was at the last Starwood, which was since the last entry here, and he mentions Starwood in an interview in Sun Magazine this month[2]. I think we can assume good faith that he did post the above note, and that he considers the event at least important enough to leave this info under "other activities", so I'm putting it back. The event is notable, he's written two articles about it besides the Sun Mag bit, and he's been on stage there many times, a lot more than he has at the Rock and Roll Hall. In fact, I challenge you to find anything he's been at as many times.JuliusAaron (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

References

COI Tag

Who is the "Major Contributor" who is supposed to have a conflict?JuliusAaron (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it as "drive-by" tagging. Tags like that require an explanation on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  18:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I placed the tag because of the comments in the previous section by an IP identifying itself as Paul Krassner. However, whatever edits he made may not be enough to justify the tag. There has been a pattern of Yippie activists editing Wikipedia for the purposes of self-promotion. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. If you read the section on biographies of living people, you'll note that there is no reason the subject of an article cannot contribute to his/her article, although creating one about yourself is frowned upon, and such contributions should be done sparingly and in a way that is not self-aggrandizing. The PREFERRED method is to post such info on the discussion page and leave it up to an interested editor to edit accordingly if they so choose. Krassner can't be called a "major contributor" in any event for a total of two posts to a discussion page. I hope you understand. Rosencomet (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the IP self-identified as Krassner, I see zero edits to the article from 75.80.254.201 (talk · contribs). If edits by activists are a sufficient reason for a COI tag then I know of many articles that'd require those tags. But that isn't the primary definiiton of conflict of interest. Rosnecomet is correct thtat the preference is for conflicted editors to use the talk page to point out errors and omissions rather than editing the article directly. It appears that is what Krassner is doing and he's to be thanked for doing so.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--79.97.208.228 (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tautological citation

The only sources I can find to support the fact(oid?) that PK was the youngest performer ever at Carnegie Hall are interviews of PK, where PK makes the claim. No independent verification, as far as I've seen. I'll keep looking, though. Meanwhile, here is a guy that claims his 13-year-old son is the youngest carnegie hall performer ever: http://www.corporateartists.com/simonandson.html.

This Paul Krassner, subject of the article. At the age of six, on Janury 14, 1939, I became the youngest concert artist in any field (in this case, a violin soloist) to perform at Carnegie Hall. This was verified by a researcher for the New Yorker, and in fact I still have a bunch of the original programs, which I would display right here if I knew how. Incidentally, the article says there are various claims that "according to some sources" the FBI called me "a raving, unconfined nut." Again, I wish I could show here my FBI files which include the original poison-pen letter which included the quote that an FBI agent sent to the editor of Life magazine after a favorable profile of me was published, plus the permission letter sent by the Washington DC office of the FBI to the New York office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.254.201 (talk)

As a Krassner fan, I have to cry B.S. Really, this should be easy enough, Paul: give us a citation for the New Yorker article confirming your story. It ain't rocket science, is it? And saying you don't know how to work a scanner just doesn't fly.

Please forgive my bad writing. I've injured a finger and it is bandaged so that I am not able to use it in typing. -Zeno Izen 10:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I confirmed it from a NYT article written at the time. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)