Talk:Robert J. Rubel

This page is still under construction but I will be working on it continuously until all formatting is to standard.Klok kaos (talk)

I have just received instructions on the best way to put in line citations into the article from the tea house.

I will be adding in line citations within 24 hours. Citations are already listed, they just need to be added in line. Klok kaos (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I still have a few more citations to add, I'll get to them after I get some rest. Sorry about the delay but this is a huge project and I've already been working on it all night :) Klok kaos (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia cannot reference itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Inline citations cannot point to other sections of the article Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere you have not explained how a list of ISBN's doesn't count as a reference. Please explain how to better format. Your question about whether or not the award for leather person of the year is notable is clear by wikipedia standards as it has been referenced as notable in many other repeated articles.

Some of the other citations needed, as noted above, will be coming after I get some sleep. Thanks for the patience. Klok kaos (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

ISBN numbers are fine you don't need a reference as well. The award has no Wikipedia article so isn't notable in Wikipedia terms? Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The award is listed under several other wikipedia pages. It doesn't have a page of it's own I believe, because it is the primary source, and it is only documented by other news orgs that are focussed on leather and alternative sexuality, which up until now, has been difficult to gain approval of through wikipedia because of an opporession of information of information regarding this subculture. This is a changing phenomenon as BDSM culture continues to gain prominence in America through media attention and commercial releases. It makes if very difficult because the culture of kink in general (speaking as an expert) is directly at a cusp where it is bleeding into the mainstream media unlike before in US history. It makes it a topic that requires revisiting regularly because of nature of when something goes from not notable to notable, and that is a difficult process with wikipedia and generally considered an uphill battle because the metrics for this are characterized very poorly and are often subject to the subjective feelings of the reviewing editor.

For example the Carter Johnson Library is barely discussed on wikipedia even though it is the world's leading source on BDSM and kink leather culture and has been around for decades. One of the advantages I have as an editor is the ability to gain access to information to better catalog these things where as traditionally kink culture has been a closed affair due to the nature of the need for privacy due to social ramifications. That is changing rapidly and will take time not only to prove to senior editors, but to help wikipedia as a whole recognize the existence and prominence of these things. To that end I'll have a book coming out later this year that provides some relavent statistics that will help add credibility by showing actual numbers. Klok kaos (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This article has problems...

I am leaving this message for anyone who is interested in the content of this article's page. I have reviewed the content of the article, and I feel moved to mention that it is not written in the appropriate style/ tone for a Wikipedia biography. Readers do not need a comprehensive reading list— we want a few highlights, and a link in an "External links" section; we don't need to know that he likes taking pictures, as this comes across as a personal detail that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. We don't need to know his partner's name. The article as it currently stands is an extended c.v., and it needs to be drastically modified in order to lose this quality. It needs to read like an encyclopedia article: tell us/ justify the claim that he is notable, mention some of his major works and briefly discuss his impact, and leave out the extraneous information. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a thorough account of his entire life, it is meant to be a summary with enough information so that readers can go elsewhere for the full story. This article is so thorough that starts to become (and please take this criticism kindly) a bit tedious— in order for it to be a good article (and I don't mean a WP:GA, which it is still rather far from) it needs to be less full of WP:PEACOCKs and more focused on the basic facts that make the subject notable. I think this can be done, but I am not an expert in this field and do not wish to appear to be treading on anyone's toes by editing this article in the somewhat drastic way I momentarily feel urged to. It should be edited by an expert who is also familiar with Wikipedia's style guidelines with regards to WP:BLP so that it does not read like a résumé. The promotional tone is too much here. Please see if that can be managed (honestly, as a new page reviewer myself, I would have been very tempted to nominate this article for speedy deletion under G11, blatant advertising). Thank you, and good luck! KDS4444 (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, the article is appalling and a prime example of why we shouldn't allow autobiographies, I have hacked a bit ...feel free to edit more. Theroadislong (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Theroadislong: I wonder... The main author of the piece claims to not be the subject, but rather claims to have interviewed him... If true, his would mean it is not an autobiography. Yet the author has made no attempt to deny being the subject, which also seems odd. All of this should be made clear on the author's userpage, but that was deleted as promotional recently as being a promotional page in violation of Wikipedia's policies for user pages (not that it was there, only that there is where it should have been). I so dislike investing my time and energy in trying to edit articles of dubious parentage and that require so much work (and so I applaud your efforts!). Maybe the original author will recreate his userpage under a less-promotional format and put some WP:COI userboxes there to help explain all this for us. But my experience says, probably not. I wish people surprised me more!!! KDS4444 (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)