User talk:Samwb123/Keith Akers

I am flattered that Wikipedia has created a page about me, this was not my idea. However, someone seems to think I am connected to the CVA. I resigned from the CVA about six months ago. It was never a major involvement, and I have been widely involved in a lot of other vegetarian organizations over the years to just as great a degree (it would be difficult, tedious, and not very helpful to list them all).

It's hard for the subject of an article to be clear about what is actually important to other impartial readers, but since this evidently is an issue for someone (who are you?), I have clarified my exact relationship with the CVA. Perhaps we could discuss just how important my involvement with the CVA is in a rather obscure Wikipedia article? I'm happy for this to be in, I'm just curious what the other persons or people who are evidently eagerly following developments in my entry are thinking. Also, it prompted me to get a Wikipedia login so I can identify myself. Keith Akers 15:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC).

A number of articles on topics like the CVA and its leaders were apparently written by Nathan Braun himself. If that was the case with this article it may explain some of the general focus. As was the case with Braun's article and many others on Wikipedia, it is generally a bad idea for subjects to edit their own articles. In the future, it'd be best if you left a note on this page explaining the errors and omissions (with a source) so that other editors can make the corrections. One problem with autobiography is that we require that all info be verifiable by other editors. However you are most welcome to contribute to other articles. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool! Then going back to the previous change (when you [I guess?] reverted my edits), the main problem is that I am not currently involved in the two organizations mentioned, the Society of Ethical Vegetarians and the Christian Vegetarian Association. I do not have a particular problem with SERV (well, not now anyway); I just wanted to move on to other things and handed over being web coordinator. But I do have a problem with CVA. This article marks the first time I have gone ever-so-slightly public about this issue -- it's odd that a Wikipedia article would be the forum for me to do this. If you search my web site, you will see no specific criticisms of the CVA on it. The quotes from the current version about how I don't feel comfortable with the position of the CVA are from private emails I made to Steve Kaufman, the current President of CVA.

Therefore, my suggestion is as follows: delete the entire final paragraph from the current version in which the private email to Steve Kaufman is quoted. Don't mention the CVA and don't mention SERV. If you did try to gather information on my involvement in CVA and SERV from public sources (and believe me, it would be more trouble than it was worth, you'd have to go out and interview people), it would turn up that at one time I had been involved with both organizations, but didn't seem to be involved now. However, that's also true of bunches of other organizations which I've been involved with and then stopped being involved with, usually because I just got tired and wanted to do something else. Listing them all would be tedious. If in the future you see an article in the New York Times (or on my web site) with the headline "AKERS BREAKS SILENCE ABOUT NATHAN BRAUN CONTROVERSY," you may report that. (Hah, hah!)

You are right to quote my statement from my web site about what I said in 1967 to the First Baptist Church. This was a significant event in my life, even though I am the only one who today reports it. You are further right to mention my past involvement in vegetarian organizations, this can't be overlooked, and could be gathered from sources other than my web site. Finally, my books are obviously published and therefore publicly available. Keith Akers 23:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'v re-written some of it in a way which I hope will make it more objective. I kept the groups that you have been involved in, as they are still a part of your biography even if you no longer active with them. When the NYT covers the "Braun Controversy" then we can use it as a source for the details. In the meantime, we really don't need to know. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you delete the references to the CVA and SERV? This is not a significant part of my biography. Unless my biography were extended to about 10 or 20 pages, the CVA would not even appear in any objectively written account. My suggestion would be to restrict organizations mentioned to those in which I had an ongoing and prominent leadership role. If you're going to list all the organizations in which I am, or have been, a member, the list will be quite long. Except for Wikipedia, I don't think you could source my membership, much less my so-called leadership role, in the CVA with any current web page or written document. There are countless other organizations, including one that I co-founded, which are not mentioned. Keith Akers 11:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If it matter that much, and if the associatoins are really that minimal, I suppose we can change the article around. It'd be good to get the names of the more important organizatoins that you've associated with. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Year of birth

I'm removing Category:1958 births because it's highly unlikely to be correct. According to [1], he was a high school senior in 1967 and according to the article he got his Bachelors in 1971. Very few high school seniors are 9 years old, and very few 13-year-olds have a B.A. He's much more likely to have been born in 1949 or 1950, but without verification, it's best to just leave it with Category:Year of birth missing (living people). —Angr 22:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I'm the subject of this article. I have tried to scrupulously avoid editing it (although early on I made a few additions, see above discussion). I can't address the question of notability, and I don't really want to be involved in "doing" Wikipedia, but some of the information is misleading or incorrect. I could get into a discussion of of what (and nothing is really offensive, just sort of wrong), but then I'd be editing the article which I don't want to do.

This article is now showing up in various places like Facebook and this is somewhat annoying. (In fact it has probably shown up like that for some time and I'm just now noticing it.) The reliable, significant, and publicly verifiable information that I see in this article comes down to two things: my bibliography and my web site. I'd suggest some variation on one of three courses of action: (1) delete the article entirely, (2) keep the article basically as a stub, deleting everything else except the bibliography, or (3) exactly what the suggestion at the top of this page says: "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted." In this last category, I would note that it has been over a year since this request to establish notability was posted. Keith Akers (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is probably deletable both on the basis of the lack of meeting the notability guideline at WP:BIO and on the basis of being a completely unreferenced biography of a living person. It doesn't technically meet the requirements of WP:BLPPROD because it's older than 18 March 2010 (and why that cutoff date was selected is a mystery to me), but if WP:PROD doesn't work it can still be taken to WP:AFD. +Angr 22:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added references and pared it back a bit, but I'm not going to contest the PROD.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)