Talk:Jim Sleeper

Format

This page needs to have proper placement of references and external links, in concordance with WP policy, even if the editor is the subject of the article.Dogru144 (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Autobiography Template

This article has been extensively edited by the subject of the article, thus it qualifies as autobiography, per WP:Autobiography. Tangytoad (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post article

I strongly advise against any explanation/synopsis of the said article that is too long or attempts to disprove it. This is neither the correct platform nor occasion. Sleeper is not accurately represented by this work nor is it a defining or major work of his, being an opinion article. Also, claims that the article is invalid/inappropriate/wrong/insulting are not backed by references. Even if the problems are rectified, it should still not receive more than a one-liner on this page. Hopefullymorecorrect (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The above-stated advise does not give due weight and consideration to the context of the article and the resulting controversy. Many article of living persons include a explanation of controversy caused by those persons. This addition is similar and it is a factual addition. The references are in the article's webpage's comments. The factual error shown in the source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.66 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis and explanation of the said article is not intended to be just a sample of Sleeper's work. The context of the article and the resulting controversy is a representation of Sleeper's beliefs and logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.49 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

1) The mention of the article, if it even belongs, would not be in the lead but in a separate section or article. Refer to the WP:MOS for what is supposed to go into the lead.

2) The reaction by the online community is quite limited and only localized to Singapore. Having this writeup here would just fuel the fire. Refer to WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and please refer to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.

3) My personal opinion is that Sleeper's article was purposely crafted to incite such a response from the online community. Drawing specific attention to the article AND the reaction is an over-reaction. Lets not feed the trolls on both sides of the debate. Zhanzhao (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The reaction to the article is significant. Never had Sleeper generated such huge controversy. Even though its "localised" to a region in Asia, it cannot be discounted. The editorial focus cannot be american-centric only. If Sleeper's article was purposely crafted to cause a controversy, then it must be included in his wikipedia article since its about his life. An appeal to not feed the trolls is not a sensible basis to exclude a mention and explanation about the article since we should reflect reality and not ensure that Sleeper gets a 'clean resume'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.82 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The recent additions would need to consider WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. BBFreman (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If we were to prominently feature something on Wikipedia anytime someone writes an article which generates online interest, it would open the floodgates of allowing almost anything to be introduced into Wikipedia. Despite the claims of the significance of the reaction to the article, a search on Google News for the article only reveals 2 news items about it; one being the original article, the other being one singular Straits Times writeup on it. Even if we add the writeup of the incident in, we should avoid a case where it seems like the focus of the whole article is an attack on the subject for that one singular incident, or as BBFreman said, take note of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. That's what was problematic with the past IP edits.

Firstly, the proportion of the writeup on that one incident is quite a lot, plus the fact that its in the lead/intro of the article. Unless the subject is well known and defined by that one incident, having so much writeup on that incident compared to the other stuff about him is [[W{:UNDUE]].

Second, when editors add analysis of an incident about one of the subjects article without even bothering to include it as one of the subject's biblio/written pieces, its very obvious that the editors are only interested in the controversy factor rather than the subject of the article.

In any case, Sleeper himself does seem to have a special interest in the Singapore/Yale tie-up, considering that 10 out of the 16 articles he wrote since March was about Singapore/Yale; he evened managing to work in the Singapore/Yale angle when writing about the US elections. The latest Israel connection is just the latest in his series of "Singapore/Yale" articles. It seems like he wants to draw attention to his pet peeve rather then being unbiased in his writings. Drawing attention to the latest controversy means Sleeper gets the attention he wanted. This last para is just my personal observation though. I'd rather include information to flesh out his whole biblio first than over-focus on one incident.

And I do suggest the new IP editors read up of the relevant WP policies that's been brought up so far. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Recommend to delete

This page. It further self promotes this fake lecturer.Phd8511 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There's been less notable people included here. Plus he is a relatively known contributor on a few established publications. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

These two suggestions for deletion of the page come from Singaporeans operating in synch with that country's ruling People's Action Party, hundreds of whose supporters also swarmed the following column by Sleeper in the Huffington Post with similarly disparaging comments. Jimsleeper (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Jim, if you can simmer down and re-read my post carefully again, you will realize that I am against Pdh8511's suggestion to delete the article. Your jumpy accusations don't exactly present you in a good light. Chill, dude. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Linkrot

Can anyone with the power to do so, help to properly cite the refs? Like not link rotting and adding footnotes? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jim Sleeper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120320181223/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2005/09/04/books/review/04SLEEPER.html?ex=1126929600&en=17aedd17c5143126&ei=5070 to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/books/review/04SLEEPER.html?ex=1126929600&en=17aedd17c5143126&ei=5070

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)