Talk:Eric Zorn

Untitled

How do we know that Eric can no longer dunk a basketball?? WBcoleman 01:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See this where he explains that he cannot in fact dunk a basketball. Whether this is encyclopedic is a different question. Superdosh 05:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Zorn's Law

The discussion here should not just be about whether to merge Zorn's Law, but whether it belongs in WP at all. It has yet to be cited anywhere other than his own column and blog; the law was added to WP by Eric himself, who describes the act as follows:

So far, so good with my effort to publicize Zorn's Law. The screeners at Wikipedia threatened to remove my attempt to advance the notion that In any debate, the first person to hurl the insult, "get a life!" is the loser, but I have temporarily stymied them. For some reason they don't want their online encyclopedia cluttered up with whims and stunts.[1]

So much for good faith. (The worst part is, I kind of like the law. :P)/blahedo (t) 16:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am collecting citations elsewhere even as we speak!!! Hold off on the delete key!--Zorn (of Zorn's Law)

Hey, no problem. We're sort of process-bound here anyway (at least when it comes to something drastic like deletion), so there's no rush. And if other people do pick up on the Law, then ipso facto it would be notable, and hence worthy of a WP page. :) /blahedo (t) 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to gather citations from reliable sources, that's great. But if all get is a bunch of message board, blog, and personal web site links, then don't bother. It will need to be deleted. I suggest merging into this article, at most. Eric Zorn is a valid source for himself, and what he says, and nothing else. --Rob 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Eric's new to WP, so I'm sure he was just unfamiliar with procedures. Either way, I support the merge as its a bit of trivia pertaining to him. If it takes off, it'd be given its own article. -- Superdosh 21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, on 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC), google has very few hits for "Zorn's law": The hits are:

• Zorn's own website
• The Wikipedia article Zorn's Law
• A few blogs commenting on the dispute.

This strikes me as a pretty blatant neologism. I'm an inclusionist at heart; but I draw the line at WP:VANITY, and just because Zorn is notable doesn't mean everything that he says or does becomes worthy of an encyclopedia article (or even of a mention in his biography here on Wikipedia). Zorn is, at least, in a decent position to promote his law; and if there becomes reliable evidence that his promotion is successful--that people actually refer to the law, other than in the context of discussing this debate--then it may become appropriate for the encyclopedia. Until that happens, I say delete (I know there isn't currently an AfD yet; though I expect one might arise if there isn't any consensus on the merge). I'll support a merge as a secondary position. --EngineerScotty 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As EngineerScotty did, and for the same reasons, I support delete if it gets to an AfD, and merge in the meantime. /blahedo (t) 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who is seeing his has probably noticed already, but based in part on some of the comments above, I've nominated Zorn's Law for deletion. I spelled out my reasoning pretty clearly there so I don't want to repeat it, but everyone above who has an opinion should voice it in the afd. --Bachrach44 01:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but let's see: Zorn creates an article that he knows doesn't meet WP standards. He writes about it. It gets proposed for deletion. He writes about that. It gets deleted (kind of inevitable). He'll write about that. So basically, this is a way of creating some material. Fan1967 05:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Except that the AfD was closed as "no consensus" (13 delete, 6 merge, 2 redirect). The only other uses I could find on Google were chicagotribune.com (Zorn's newspaper) and Zorn's own blog, plus WP and mirrors. If it hasn't spread, then it's inherently non-notable in that there are no independent media reports of the term. Zorn said he was collecting citations, where are they? Nonetheless, I could live with a merge, provided it was NPOV (including Zorn's first failed attempt to create a law, and mentioning its lack of use in other media - this can be revised, with citations, when or if it starts attracting even a fraction of the usage of Godwin's law). If I blog about the freshly-minted Anderson's Law, that the first person to use "Whateverrrr" in an argument automatically loses, do I score a WP entry? :) Paddles ^T_C 05:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As noted on Talk:Zorn's Law, I've merged the actual content of the law to this article. If someone else wants to go ahead and redirect the other page now... Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Paddles ^T_C 10:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And what do you know, he used his Wikipedia experience as the subject for a column [2]. Gee, why am I not surprised? Fan1967 16:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, good to hear he's at least putting a positive spin on it. A lot of people might take this opportunity to rail against Wikipedia for not accepting their cutting-edge coinages. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Major cleanup

Thanks to Zagalejo for the great work he did on this article. He turned a fan page with no reliable sources into a quality, fully-sourced encylopedia stub. He told me he plans on expanding it. Great job! --76.189.109.147 (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked the sources and didn't see mention of a "left of center perspective", but it did say he was still a Democrat.Holbach Girl (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

First sentence is what he is famous for, so I moved Democrat down the page. "Liberal" isn't in the source, so I copied a quote I assume led you to speculate.Holbach Girl (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

He explains his positions on several specific issues, which are clearly liberal positions. Your change was unnecessarily wordy -- we should be as concise as possible. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to be concise and say that he's a Democrat who holds liberal positions on several issues. This is what he says in the source, directly and indirectly. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

a Democrat who holds liberal positions on several issues

This describes billions of people without saying anything, and doesn't look like something found in an encyclopedia.

You said about Zorn "He explains his positions on several specific issues, which are clearly liberal positions", which is true only about some of his positions. Democrat, liberal, progressive are not synonymous labels. The news source doesn't describe the positions as "liberal". What is worse, you deleted all of those explanations, and replaced them with "Zorn is a Democrat who holds liberal positions on several issues." At least half the people in the US hold "liberal positions", so readers will look at your sentence and wonder who let Capt. Obvious edit this page. I've tried to fix it for you.Holbach Girl (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)