Talk:James Barnett (entrepreneur)

Disambiguations

This should not be the default page for 'James Barnett.' It is an extremely common name in the English-speaking world and there are already multiple 'James Barnett's on Wikipedia. James Barnett should kick to a disambiguation page, not to an obscure victim of an anti-gay act. 99.172.39.59 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

seriously

who wrote this himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.192.129 (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording

the article is notable bcuz he was expelled for being gay, so can anyone think of a bteer way to reword it, since it starts off by telling how he's an entrepaneur, which isnt what makes him notable.Qrc2006 10:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

I dont really think that that many links with similar content are needed

Its a bit of a waste

Maybe keep say 5?

Reedy Boy 09:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• i disagree, as news articles some may be removed over time, they are all relevant and most provide information not included in the other articles. However i think some may be somewhat superfulous the best way to deal with that is to pick the best out of say 3 nearly identical articles and cite them in a referances section, i dont know how to do that yet though Qrc2006 22:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it i was right then Reedy Boy 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

the article is about james barnett not my-boi and he is notable for being expelled for being gay so the article should be rewritten to specify that, firthermore it should start off that wayQrc2006 22:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being expelled for being gay, while wrong morally, does not make for notability as Wikipedia defines it. Heck, getting murdered, which is much worse, does not make for notability. WP:BIO defines notability. --Storkk 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

note to the paranoid: i said "being expelled for being gay" is wrong. not "being gay" is wrong. --Storkk 15:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Taken straight from WP:BIO "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" if this doesn't suit James I don't know what does.Cholga 17:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The "event" is that a person got expelled from an institution based on his sexual orientation. That is highly unfortunate, but not a "newsworthy event". --Haakon 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why did this event which is not newsworthy make the news?Qrc2006 08:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Unfortunately, being expelled for being gay, while wrong morally, does not make for notability as Wikipedia defines it. Heck, getting murdered, which is much worse, does not make for notability. WP:BIO defines notability. --Storkk 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there, Storkk.

Barnett is notable under the Wiki terms by being:

• "... widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field."

• "... other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.."

• "... achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events..."

• "...the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.."

For a 17 year old to start a social support network for gay youth, be outed for it to his parents against his wishes, be expelled, sue, gain national press over the issues of gay youth and coming out, be given several different awards for those efforts by national gay groups, and to then turn around and launch several other internet ventures, he more than meets the requirements.

Besides, he passes the Google Test, the Verifiability test and the Bio test. He may only get a footnote in history, but that's more than enough to gain entry to Wiki.Jodyw1 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrmn. good points. but:

• The "enduring historical record" has not yet been established. (pts 1&2)

I have minor issues with your use of the 4th point, that still leaves point 3. However, his "renown or notoriety" is a highly subjective point that is also extremely temporal. In my opinion, this will all have been totally forgotten (i.e. not even footnoted) within a year. I still think that this should be a redirect to the school (since that is what is really the subject of the articles about him). I've had more than my say, and don't care to argue much about this any more, though. This is just my 2¢. Feel free to reply here to contest my points for others who might read it, but unless something I said gets mischaracterized, I'll let someone else have the last word. --Storkk 13:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Blogs

Blogs are not permitted as reference for wikipedia; they are excluded from reliable sources. (it is interesting to note that wikipedia is not a reliable source either :-) I deleted all of them but one: the blog of Barnett is admissible, because the article is about him. `'mikka (t) 00:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's really not true. There's no wording on the page that bans the use of blogs. What the page you linked to does say is that blogs have to be considered on a case by case basis, and in light of its use as a primary or secondary source. It's late and I'm tired, so I don't have time to argue the merits of each blog link here, or to really evaluate if the links are worth arguing over. I'll take it up with fresh eyes, and a fresh pot of coffee, in the morning.Jodyw1 08:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you've already have had a pot or two of coffee to review the rules. It fact there is a wording that bans specifically blogs and wikis:

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking.

I can put whatever misinfromation I concont in a blog. `'mikka (t) 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

category

whats the category for lgbt people? i think it should be addedQrc2006 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed from list of American Conservatives

Nothing in this bio/fansite indicates that the subject is an American conservative, much less one of any note. Removed.

it says he is a republican and supports george bush in one of the articles^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)