Byrne section[edit]

This is already in Byrne's entry, Overstock's entry, and the naked short selling entry. The column itself may be "most notorious" in the including editor's opinion, but there are no second sources other than Nocera's own column that mention this column. It shouldn't be here under Nocera's bio, he's written a lot of columns. A summary of each one is not the place for them here. The entries for the subjects of those columns are, unless he is cited for those columns in other sources (as was properly done in this Nocera entry for the columns mentioned in his sourced bio page).

Including just the Byrne piece, that's not cited anywhere but Nocera's own column, is a gratuitous attempt to overkill the Byrne vs Journalists thing in the wrong place. Piperdown 00:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that it is mentioned in three entries is an indication of its significance.--Mantanmoreland 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Circular reasoning. If this is Nocera's only important column at NYT that merits inclusion in his biography despite no one else besides Nocera mentioning the article, that's an interesting representation of his career at NYT. The other columns cited in this bio were cited in a 2nd party's press coverage of Nocera. This one isn't as far as I can find.Piperdown 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me illustrate my point further. Example: a) Nocera wrote a 2000 piece calling Roger Clemens a "choke artist". No other media coverage on the Nocera column. Using this reasoning of this being cited on several wikipedia entries so it goes here, I could a) put the Nocera quote in the Clemens entry, The New York Yankees entry, and the 2000 World Series entry. b) come back here and put in a paragraph about it, citing that it should go here because it's in 3 other wikipedia entries. Do you see my point? If not, I'll happily illustrate it by doing just that to the Clemens/Yankees/Nocera entries.Piperdown 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on the notability and notoriety of this particular Nocera column, if I may. At the 2006 annual meeting, Berkshire Hathway, a shareholder asked Warren Buffett about naked short selling. He replied, "As you know, we have a friend who's been outspoken on naked shorting. I don't have a great problem with it. If anyone wants to do that with Berkshire, more power to 'em."
This comment, in turn, came up for discussion on the Berkshire Hathaway-devoted bulletin board of MSN. In that discussion, Nocera's "campaign of menace" column is prominently discussed. [(here)] Scroll down to the post by "insuranceissexy" and follow thereon out.

--Christofurio 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) buffet didn't mention Nocera. b) what is discussed on a msn chat room is not relevant to this encyclopediaPiperdown 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it irrelevant. You asked for "other sources" that mention Nocera's column. You didn't say "other sources not counting msn chat rooms." And if you had said that, there would have been no point to the question anyway, since what is notable doesn't depend on your gerymandering. --Christofurio 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what's usable as a source depends on WP rules. My "gerymandering" or my personal opinion is irrelevant to what should be cited on Wikipedia. Pretty sure MSN chatroom discussions are not usable as sources for Wikipedia material, but I'm not an expert on wikipedia, so you might query a admin about that. Piperdown 18:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has actually written three columns within the space of one year criticizing Byrne and the naked shorting campaign. That is a large number for a weekly columnist and certainly worthy of mentioning in an item on Nocera. Certainly it should not be excluded. As time passes I am sure other column subjects will be added.--Mantanmoreland 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories