Talk:Charlie Green

List order and NPOV

One or several unregisterd users have during the last weeks first tried to (technically wrong) redirect all other articles about people with the name "Charlie Green" as well as this disambuigition page to the article about the boy singer of that name. Then he/she/they have rearranged the originally chronological order of the list on this page putting the boy singer on top of it. The only arguing that has been made (if any) is that the boy singer is "most popular". In my opinion this is a highly POV way of reasoning, not least because it is extremely hard to tell who's "most popular" among a list of people living at various times and working in different fields, but also because popularity is something that is very much in the eye of the beholder. Personally for example I had never heard about the boy singer before this "edit war" but was well aware of the jazz trombonist (and I must confess that I doubt whether the apparent hype surrounding the 12 year old singer will last long enough to have him remembered as a stylistically important person 70 years after his death as is the case with the jazz musician - but that's my POV).

Thus I suggest that the list remains ordered chronlogically in order to be as NPOV as possible. /FredrikT (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply: It's in your own opinion that you consider chronology as the best order, when in fact it has never been supported by NPOV as you blatantly claim.

The matter of determining the "most popular" isn't necessarily difficult on this case. One simply has to utilize an internet search (i.e: Google, Yahoo, YouTube) to find out which person stands out the most, and the facts obviously direct to the child singer. What I say is backed up by CONCRETE FACTS dear sir, and therefore, you really have no right to say this is such a "highly POV way of reasoning" or that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" when clearly such claims are backed up by facts.

Next, you have committed DOUBLE STANDARDS. In case you haven't noticed, most articles in Wikipedia that contain similar names also tend to be arranged based on popularity. I am simply following this notion, and I rarely ever see articles arranged in chronological order. YOUR insistence must be the first. Here's some examples:

1. George Bush. If you type this in the Wikipedia search box, it will lead to a disambiguation page, and clearly you will see that "George W. Bush (43rd president)" comes first before any other "George Bush". In fact, he even came first before his father. Notice that in no way is the list arranged in your esteemed chronological order.

2. George Washington.

3. Harrison Ford.

If you really are dedicated enough to arrange things in chronological order, then I raise the question on why you never seem to have the same dedication to do so in other more popular articles, such as the ones I've mentioned. Clearly, a direct violation of double standards.

We arrange them based on popularity for the sake of CONVENIENCE, dear sir. I already considered your opinion of removing the redirect to Charlie Green (singer) and changing it into a disambiguation page instead. Please do not be so stubborn.

Dear whoever you are,

First of all: your edits and arguing would probably be taken much more seriously a) if you bothered to register or at least sign your discussion posts b) learned a little more of the basics of Wikipedia editing (which your earlier attempts to put redirect-tags at the top of articles with content clearly show that you haven't bothered to do).

Secondly: not least YouTube but also other internet resources are extremely blunt instruments when trying to measure the importance/popularity of things and persons from various historical periods, since the internet is extremely "present-biased". 'Of course there are more clips on YouTube of a contest-winning singer who has recently appeared on national television than there is of a musician who died only a few years after the arrival of sound film. If you on the other hand would have gone to a traditional library and looked up some musical encyclopedias you would probably have found Charlie Green the trombone player in several of them but not a line about Charlie Green the boy singer, and possibly nor about any other Britain's got talent participants (who - face it - will probably most of them have their 15 seconds of fame and then be forgotten in a few years). So yes: at least in Britain the young Charlie Green might possibly be the best known carrier of that name - today. But what about tomorrow? You should take a look at the page about Wikipedia:Recentism.

Why then haven't I changed other disambugition pages in the same chronological way? Well as a matter of fact I have: in St. Louis Blues I had quite a fight some time ago with someone who stubbornly claimed that the hockey team of that name was more important and popular than anything else and thus should be at the top of the list - although it was named after the blues song with same title! However: 95% of my Wikipedia article is spent on the Swedish language verion, so that's sinmply my main reason for not having gone through and checked a vast number of disambugition pages on the English version.

Looking at your edits however (assuming you are the same person behind a row of similar IP-addresses) you seem to have edited only in and around the article on Charlie Green the singer which I must confess makes it easy to jump to the conclusion that you're a devoted fan of his who is using Wikipedia mainly to POV-push your idol.

However - We've both stated our views now. Let others have a word in this before we do any more editing or reverting. /FredrikT (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

Response (R) to 1st par: I'm pretty sure a self-proclaimed Wikipedia veteran such as you would know that Ad Hominems never work in an argument. :) So as much as I would like to bash your personal profile, your incorrect spellings, and your wrong grammar, I've restrained myself not to do so. Please consider sticking to the substance of the argument next time. :)

R to 2nd par: Your idea that the entire internet being "present-biased" is a huge misconception. A clear violation of the fallacy Hasty Generalization. Although I may agree with you that YouTube can be considerably "present-biased", owing to the fact that it's a video-sharing website, I beg to differ on other notable websites. Isn't it a fair assumption that considering Charlie Green the trombone player was born in 1900, surely the internet would be able to produce a lot of biographical information about him? The answer is I found NONE. Interestingly, even his own Wikipedia article didn't provide any citations nor provide any direct sources at all.

I've taken a look at Wikipedia:Recentism and the article regarding the child singer doesn't in any way violate the rules and principles set there.

The "traditional library" is hardly a good enough basis to consider the trombonist as being "more popular". If you're someone who watches TV, listens to radio, surfs the net, goes to malls and music stores, etc.. it would be clear to you that the child singer really is the most popular carrier of the name.

I believe he is also actually popular in the Philippines. Anyways, where's your basis in predicting that he (or any person in particular) would lose their popularity as time passes by? Indeed, that can never be known but if that chance does come by, then that's the only time can you safely go back to the previous chronological order. But that too can still be unlikely considering that the trombonist himself is hardly even notable, unless you can find a good enough source other than your "traditional library".

R to 3rd par: I dare you to try editing the George Bush disambiguation page.

R to 4th par: A bold lie. :) Please do try to prove it if you can. I have edited numerous articles that encompass several topics, but of course, considering that we previously had an "edit war", it's obvious as to why there's a degree of focus on this article. Please stop your ad hominems and stick to the argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.192.228 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A brief answer: I think you're missing my main point. I've never claimed that Charlie Green the trombone player (or Charlie Green the football player or any other Charly Green) is more popular/well known/important than the child singer. My point is that such matters are almost impossible to state objectively since they are subject to time, place, interest and a lot of others factors, Thus: Charlie Green the singer = very well known among contemporary British and Philippine people watching talent shows on TV but probably little known to people in for example Scandinavia and continental Europe; Charlie Green the trombonist = probably not very known at all among people in general but well known to jazz historians and jazz afficionados world-wide and "alive" enough for his recordings to be continously re-released on CD more than 70 years after his death; and finally Charlie Green the football player = presumably well known among people who are interested in American football (but since I'm completely uninterested in sport I wouldn't know).

Thus the only claim I make is that since a list orderred by "popularity" can always be disputed it is better to arrange the list on a completely neutral basis.

As for the conclusions I jumped to regarding your agenda her on Wikipedia I apologize sincerly if I was wrong. I did however check att least half a dozen of the various IP addresses you seem to have been editing from before writing what I did, and could not find a single "user contribution" by any of them that was not about Charlie Green (either the article or the disambugition page). But of course it is not easy to follow the complete editings of a user who edits from a vast number of differing IP addresses.

(And by the way: feel free to comment on my grammar and spelling errors. English is not my native tongue and I'm perfectly aware that my handling of it is not perfect but would of course like to improve). /FredrikT (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

Per your request, I have created an account exclusively for this purpose.

I'm not missing your main point. Considering that in our previous discussion, you seem to be comparing the trombonist and the child singer's popularity based on their names being in a "traditional library", which I don't really think warrants a good enough source to consider on who really is more "popular". Moreover, you were also comparing both of them on the basis of time, where you seem to be arguing that the trombonist will last forever while the child singer shall be easily forgotten. With that being said, you certainly did really sound that you were promoting the trombonist's popularity as much as possible.

Okay, so regarding your main point, where we have to arrange people's names on the basis of neutrality, I think that this is something I may have to disagree with. Knowing fully well on your veteran experience here in Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure you have noticed that majority of Wikipedia articles with disambiguation pages tend to have the most popular name placed on top of the list. We do this for the sake of convenience and ease in using Wikipedia. Your argument that the arrangement of popularity as being subjective is entirely DEPENDENT. You CANNOT apply it to all Wikipedia articles, but only to SOME. With that being said, I think it's safe to say that there is a considerable discrepancy between the child singer and the trombonist's popularity, with the child singer being considerably more popular than the trombonist, and thus warrant the right to be placed at the top of the list for convenience.

Again, if you're really devoted into following your argument that chronology is the best order, and if you really want to see my point, then I suggest you try to impose that argument on more well-known articles such as George W. Bush. You'd be surprised on how many established users would justify putting his name on top of the list due to him being the most popular carrier of the name.

Lastly, we all know that this discussion started due to your removing the redirect page to the child singer and creating a more neutral disambiguation page instead. Please, I have considered the facts at hand and actually consented that you may actually be right (considering that the popularity gap between the trombonist and the child singer isn't really that completely massive), which is why, in the end, I didn't bother in trying to put back the redirect page. However, since there is still a considerable, and quite fairly large gap between their popularity, I considered in putting the child singer's name on top of the disambiguation list instead as a small recognition of him being the most popular carrier.

This issue has already been completely overblown, due to the mere fact of disambiguation arrangement. So please, consider this as an acceptable compromise. Thank you.

lemontea10 (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)