71–80 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask a random stranger on the street how many pornstars he can name, and then how many scientists he can name and you'll see that the author lives in a bubble. s/random stranger/random male stranger/
You think only guys watch porn?
Name a porn star from the 1800s. Name a scientist from the 1800s. A bit easier, isn't it? People who can't name scientists from earlier times can't name porn stars from then either. Science isn't about popularity or notability. It's about satisfying your curiosity about nature, honestly reporting your results, and experiment. At least it is for me, which is why I got a PhD in physics. Porn stars thrive on publicity.…
(I don't care about the actual discussion, but your reasoning is so flawed I was compelled to respond)
I find it perplexing that someone with a science background could have said this: "Gary Martin and Sean Ekins are personal friends so YES, I have close connections with the subject. And I believe I can objectively write a good article about them." He may have good information, and it's great that he's sharing that information. But being friends with the subject immediately rules out the authors objectivity. That info…
As apposed to someone saying "I've spent many hours enjoying videos staring adult performers Belladonna and Sasha Grey so YES, I have close connections with the subject. And I believe I can objectively write a good article about them." ... ...which by Wikipedia's standards would then be ok. I'm pro-porn, but from my experience many of these 'fans' are so in awe of their idols they're far more likely to write biased e…
Tangential to the discussion, and maybe I live in a bubble, but do this sort of people exist? I mean, what does being a 'fan' in this context constitute? Collecting all movies of a certain actor/actress, or actually reading biographies, trying to meet (maybe 'meat'? I'm the funny guy in the family) them? I'm not even sure how that would work, do porn actors have like 'public appearances'?
I once had a heated discussion with a classical violinist about who the most known Dane was outside of Denmark. She insisted that it had to be Carl Nielsen, a composer, whom she was sure everyone would know. All her friends knew Carl Nielsen, and many of them could play his most known symphonies from memory. I'd only vaguely heard of him, and contended that maybe Hans Christian Andersen would be more known, since Dis…
Because pornstars are more notable among the masses than scientists. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is true. Ask most people to name a scientist, the only one they can name is Einstein. Ask most men to name pornstars, they can rattle of Jenna Jameson, Asia Careera, Ron Jeremy etc. For women, it will be the authors of romance novels.
Most notable pornstars aren't any more notable than most notable scientists. If you go to porn conventions you know the people in the industry. If you go to academic conventions you know the people in the industry. If you do neither you only know by whats trending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The greatest Dane? I'd have to go with Marmaduke.
Upvoted by the HNers For Humor coalition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klovn
This is hilarious too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_(character)
I once had a heated discussion with a classical violinist about who the most known Dane was outside of Denmark. She insisted that it had to be Carl Nielsen, a composer, whom she was sure everyone would know. All her friends knew Carl Nielsen, and many of them could play his most known symphonies from memory. I'd only vaguely heard of him, and contended that maybe Hans Christian Andersen would be more known, since Dis…
That's an easy one. The best known Dane is obviously Peter Schmeichel :) The bubble of football/soccer fans is a quite populous place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right about random strangers on the street, but Wikipedia's official policy is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"…
Wikipedia actually doesn't really care about you being "worthy" of notice or interesting. What it actually cares about is that if there are reliable sources that could back up your claim, which is what Notability is mostly about. It's there for a more pragmatic reason, of writing a encyclopedia where contents could be verified by an external source.