Talk:Cragg Hines

Untitled

• Owen Courrèges of the KSEVradio-affiliated "Lone Star Times" weblog described Hines as the "most abrasive, pompous, and obese liberal ideologue" on the newspaper's staff.[1]
• LST is a major & newsworthy Chronicle critic.

It's a blog. A non-notable person blogging a smear against a journalist is not suitable material for this encyclopedia. -Willmcw 22:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Even if the blog were the most reputable thing in the world, it wouldn't be appropriate to include such an ad hominem attack. There's no need to include a comment about whether Cragg Hines is fat or not. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, from Wikipedia:Cite sources: At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites and weblogs, which are not acceptable as sources. Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Visiting a stranger's personal web page is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly — with significant skepticism. Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources -Willmcw 23:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gee, Will, and what exactly was it that the quote I added did? Oh yeah, that's right - it used a political website for a source to discuss the opinions of that website, and in turn its larger audience at the radio station that sponsors that website, about Cragg Hines. The view was stated in a brief one-sentence segment and was fully attributed with a complete disclaimer of what LST is and believes. And of course you all would _never_ try to shove an extreme political website into an article as an unattributed source for something...(cough) Austin Chronicle (cough, cough)...Rangerdude 00:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Austin Chronicle is a free newspaper, not a website. This quote you want is from a blog. Different things entirely. This is inappropriate material. -Willmcw 00:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Austin Chronicle is also an extremist political publication from the far left wing. Quoting it without attribution and qualification is accordingly inappropriate. As to Lone Star Times, your ad hominem attack upon them as a source is no basis for excluding their properly qualified and attributed viewpoint, especially since that viewpoint characterizes the position of a noted Chronicle critic. Rangerdude 00:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have no problem using the Houston Press, which is precisely the same sort of free newspaper as the Austin Chronicle (perhaps even published by the same company), to push your POV against the Houston Chronicle. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Houston Press is already disclosed repeatedly in qualifiers throughout the articles where it has been used. Its content was also DIRECTLY on topic pertaining to the subject of those articles. When you added the Austin Chronicle source it (1) lacked a proper disclosure of where it came from and (2) pertained to an extraneous secondary subject being mentioned within the subject of the Houston Chronicle itself but having nothing to do with the Houston Chronicle. Disclosing the sources and linking to their articles to let the reader decide is the best policy for matters such as these. Rangerdude 03:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By whom has Owen Courrèges been noted? Do you really think anyone would take a critic seriously whose main criticism of a journalist is that he is "obese"? By analogy, is it appropriate to include quotes from all the left-wing blogs that attack President Bush? I don't think so. -Willmcw 00:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

You're arguing straw men, will. The notable party here is not Owen Correges but rather Lone Star Times, where his article is published. As to left wing attacks, it would be inappropriate to include attacks from each and every left winger but a single attack from a major Bush critic that is generally representative of their positions is permissible. Rangerdude 00:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The author of the comment is hardly a strawman. Anyway, the LST itself is not especially noted as blogs go. Even if it were, it's still a blog. We don't use even noted blogs as sources. -Willmcw 01:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Focusing your attention upon the author to dismiss him as insignificant while ignoring the publication he writes for is indeed a straw man, given that I have cited the significance of the publication he works for in relation to the issue. There is no wikipedia policy prohibiting the use of blogs as sources either, nor do you have the authority to impose one. Rangerdude 02:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A non-notable author writing for a non-notable blog. Is this the standard you propose for all articles? Is it OK to add smears from blogs to politician's biographies? That'd make George W. Bush's article quite long. I didn't write the guideline calling blogs poor sources. Maybe you can get the guideline changed to allow blogs as sources. Even then, I still don't see what is gained by calling the subject the most obese reporter on staff. That's a pretty juvenile remark to make about a top political reporter. -Willmcw 04:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your ad hominems upon the source aside, Lone Star Times is notable and directly pertinent to subjects involving the Houston Chronicle for reason of their direct involvement in multiple disputes with that paper and as an outlet for major participants in those disputes such as Dan Patrick. You are also persisting in your straw man misconstruction of my argument when you suggest that multiple "smears" be added to the Bush article from every blog that criticizes him. That analogy is false as (1) we are not talking about multiple attacks from every blog rather but a single attack from a blog with notable relevance to the Houston Chronicle, and (2) I have already acknowledged that multi-blog attack quotes would indeed be inappropriate per the guideline. As to the obesity comment, it is somewhat juvenile and I would be open to excluding it from the quote to retain only the portions that are critical of Hines' abrasive writing style as their perception of that writing style is the purpose of including the source to begin with. Rangerdude 04:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we get an article about the LST then Courrèges's quote can be used as an example of the blog's standard of writing. Let's try to find a more intelligent, authoritative criticism of Hines. -Willmcw 05:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of adding new material, and if you have something better by all means offer it. Deleting existing material that you don't like without offering any replacement or improvement however gets to be problematic. Rangerdude 09:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)