Talk:Ryan Holiday#Request to restore constructive edits and build consensus

Original diff (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Holiday&type=revision&diff=532585502&oldid=532581876&diffmode=source) does not contain source. Perhaps of note is that the stated date of June 16 is suspiciously similar to the TechCrunch article date of July 16 sam1370 (talk · contribs) 01:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

:The birthdate should be removed if there is no publicly verifiable source stating what his birthday is. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This is missing some details about Ryan Holiday became Director in American Apparel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool-RR (talk • contribs) 06:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

:And what are those missing details? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The Obstacle is the Way section lacks objectivity. It is overweighted with testimonial soundbyte praise-driven citations-- it cites & quotes multiple (excessive) celebrities and teams who read the book. These -dozen?- "blurb" entries don't serve a scholarly or informative purpose, but sell the book. There is also zero critical response to his works anywhere else leaving the article grossly unbalanced.

This taints the article and Wikipedia generally and its standards by diminishing the objectivity. It gives the appearance of a subject-author, or his agent, using the article for blatant self promotion. 2600:1700:AD20:F000:9DD0:7237:40BA:DC9A (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

: I am a big fan of Ryan Holiday's, but agree that this entry for him is promotional and does not meet Wikipedia standards. I will plan to work on correcting that in the near future.IndyNotes (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

::@User:IndyNotes, I have begun to address this issue, but short of a bold edit. Any content in and around this material that is unsourced, is now tagged {{cn}}. The four examples given of how impactful the book has been with celebrity influencers—these are now bulleted. Unfortunately, the material is all sourced, and so I've called for an expert in Media to make the bold edit. I personally feel that this self-described "Media Manipulator" clearly follows pages from his own playbooks by providing his book to celebrities, and then arranging media to attend to their responses. (That is, he is gaming media, and our editors are playing along, by reporting the reponses he appears to arrange.) If one doubts, please see his first book publication, and the various sources cited, where marketer Holiday explains what he perceives and means by Media Manipulation and Growth Hacking. (He is clearly hacking his own growth as a brand, we simply need to find sources that make this observation, for our reporting would just add to the WP:OR of the article.) [A frmr prof.] 76.136.112.80 (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel like the tone of this article comes across as very negative, especially in the intro "controversial for marketing stoicism in the form of books". This just comes across as if someone very anti-Holiday wrote this intro. Why not "His writings on stoicism have been criticised" or "He publishes works on the ancient philosophy of stoicism, which have drawn criticism for x". Or just split the sentences, and first talk about his books and then their criticism. The way its currently written, it just comes across overly bitter and un-objective. ThatLoLFanboy (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Today, I called for this issue to be addressed. This is an editorial opinion, of WP editor, and it is labeled as such, now, with call for a citation to support it (if such a statement exists in published print, other than our myriad mirror sites). Note, however: the principle issue of the article is not that it is overly negative; it is that it, in combination, is (i) largely unsourced, (ii) based primarily on the marketing materials and summaries of the title subject's books, and otherwise (iii) it is rife with biased, supportive statements of the work, rather than balanced accounts. As you see in our edit of the presentation of the Alter piece in the NYT, even in citing sources, parts that are adulatory are chosen for presentation. This violates WP:NPOV. In short, you are correct, the lead displays an element of interpretive bias against the title subject, and errs in doing so, in its not sourcing the opinion. But the bulk of the article is rife with supportive perspectives, making the article as a whole biased in full support of the grand, fully notable, and unquestioned contributions [sic.] of the title subject. Balance is indeed need, but from start fully through to finish. 76.136.112.80 (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@User:IndyNotes, and all others interested: This was added to the lead, because it is beyond the pale to accept a WP editor's assertion, without citation, that the entire list of books from this author, coming out at times at a pace of one, even two a year, that all of these are truly notable. Not even the prodigious and scholarly Martin Marty or Will Durant could claim such! See also the preceding reply regarding bias in the lead—the issue here is the whole of the article remains a mess, the most important element of which is that it is overly adulatory regarding the title subject's writings. Cheers. 76.136.112.80 (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Significant changes were made on April 27, 2025 that removed maintenance templates and, in my opinion, introduces a significantly more promotional tone to the article. Rather than devolving to edit warring, I want to discuss what changes are appropriate and what should be reverted. A few things I would like to highlight:

• I believe that the previous sections headings better aligned with MOS:HEADINGS
• I do not believe phrases such as "drew on his tenure as director of marketing at American Apparel to document—and unapologetically demonstrate—the ease with which online outlets can be “gamed”" and "the hardcover bore the Times “New York Times Bestseller” slug" reflect WP:NPOV
• Citations no longer accurately verify the information written such as "The [book] sparked debate in journalism schools and introduced Holiday’s trademark blend of anecdote and media theory"[https://www.businessinsider.com/trust-me-im-lying-will-make-you-question-everything-you-read-2012-8]
• As previously discussed, Holiday is a known "media manipulator." As a result, sources like WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and WP:TECHCRUNCH should be viewed more critically than normal.
• Half of the 28 citations are WP:PRIMARY; 8 are Holiday himself, 3 are interviews, and 3 are Bestseller stats. Vegantics (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging recent editors @IndyNotes, @Drmies, @2600:1008:B13D:29D:CDBC:F3A0:1982:E7AE, @76.136.112.80 Vegantics (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::I reverted: that's just promotional editing. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Drmies, Thank you for the added perspective, I'm not trying to make unilateral changes here and haven't been as active in this article's recent revisions as other editors. Vegantics (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I removed substantial promotional material and added several new sources. The revised headings were preferrable and more in line with Wiki standards.IndyNotes (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You also removed twelve sources. From what I can tell, the sources you added are:

::::* A Business Insider article, which I voiced objection to above

::::* A WSJ bestseller list from 2019 that did not verify the information it cited

::::* A London times review that did not call his book "bracing but occasionally hectoring" but rather "an unintentionally hilarious amalgam of Tony Benn and Arnold Schwarzenegger...That’s not to say any of the advice is actually bad."

::::* A Barnes and Noble product link to Holiday's book

::::* An NPR piece that called it a "2018 Great Read," not a “Best Book of the Year.”

::::* A Guardian article which, while largely accurate to the information cited, doe not confirm that his books had "sold at least five million copies"

::::Could you highlight some of the WP:PROMO material that you removed or other examples of BLP articles that use similar headings? Vegantics (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I want to correct my previous comment about twelve sources being removed-- seventeen were removed and nine were added. The three added ones that I missed previously were Amazon links to Holiday's books. The seventeen removed references were:

:::::*Bosh, Chris (May 10, 2019). "What NBA All-Star Chris Bosh Can't Live Without". The Strategist. Retrieved January 16, 2025.

:::::*PGA Tour Staff (August 5, 2019). "Best-Selling Book Finds Way Onto PGA Tour". PGATour.com.[dead link]

:::::*"Top 10 Marketing Books of 2014". Inc.com. Archived from the original on December 7, 2024. Retrieved January 15, 2025.

:::::*WP Staff (July 13, 2019). "Best-Selling Books Week Ended June 15". The Washington Post.[dead link]

:::::*WSJ Staff (July 19, 2019). "Best-Selling Books Week Ended Jan. 5". The Wall Street Journal.

:::::*Cohan, William D. (February 27, 2018). "Bringing Down a Media Empire". New York Times Book Review. Retrieved March 8, 2018.

:::::*Galuppo, Mia (June 11, 2018). "Francis Lawrence to Direct Gawker v. Hulk Hogan Movie From 'Big Short' Writer". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved January 16, 2025.

:::::*NYT Staff (November 1, 2019). "Books—Bestsellers". The New York Times.

:::::*PW Staff (October 2019). "The On-Sale Calendar: October 2019". PublishersWeekly.com. Retrieved January 16, 2025.

:::::*Holiday, Ryan & Hanselman, Stephen. Lives of the Stoics: The Art of Living from Zeno to Marcus Aurelius. Penguin-Random House. ISBN 9780525541875. Retrieved April 20, 2025

:::::*Haupt, Angela (October 5, 2020). "13 books to help you weather the rest of 2020 and beyond". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 7, 2020.

:::::*Holiday, Ryan. Courage Is Calling: Fortune Favors the Brave. Penguin-Random House. ISBN 9780593191675. Retrieved April 20, 2025.[non-primary source needed]

:::::*Holiday, Ryan. Discipline Is Destiny: The Power of Self-Control. ISBN 9780593191705. Retrieved April 20, 2025.[non-primary source needed]

:::::*Holiday, Ryan (2023). "The Daily Dad". Penguin-Random House. ISBN 9780593539057. Retrieved April 20, 2025.[non-primary source needed]

:::::*Holiday, Ryan (2024). "Right Thing, Right Now | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books". Penguin-Random House. ISBN 9780593191712. Retrieved April 20, 2025.

:::::*Gander, Kashmira (December 8, 2016). "Stoicism 2.0: How the 2,300-year-old philosophy has been re-branded for modern life". The Independent. Retrieved January 26, 2017.

:::::*Goldhill, Olivia (December 17, 2016). "Silicon Valley tech workers are using an ancient philosophy designed for Greek slaves as a life hack". Quartz. Retrieved January 26, 2017.

:::::Vegantics (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::IndyNotes, I am not very convinced that you are an expert on "in line with Wiki standards". Drmies (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IndyNotes] Doug Weller talk 16:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::A few notes and comments from IndyNotes (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC):

::::* Vegantics, the Guardian article I cited specifically says this: "The wild popularity of of the philosophy as a way to live is showing no sign of ebbing. Holiday’s various books (of which there are roughly a gazillion) have sold at least 5m copies." In fact, it's even right there in the article's subtitle! Removing the text about the number of copies, with a valid and high standard source, is improper. Did you not check the sources? I will assume good faith here, but it is hard not to wonder if there is some ulterior motive behind the destruction of this page.

::::* Vegantics, the WSJ source specifically lists the book as No. 1, and its listing there is five years after its initial release. Removing the text about its ranking, with a valid and high standard source, is improper. Did you not check the sources? I will assume good faith here, but it is hard not to wonder if there is some ulterior motive behind the destruction of this page.

::::* Vegantics, the entire NPR article is titled "Best Books of 2018," and thus the books on that page are considered among the best books for that year. If you'd like to clarify that it is "among" the best books, that would be a good edit. But removing everything, as you've done here, is improper.

::::* Regarding the subheadings, per WP:SECTIONHEAD, section headings should be **concise**, **descriptive**, and written in **sentence-case**. “Early exposés and marketing guides (2012–13)” signals both topic and time span in ≤50 characters, meeting MOS:HEAD’s brevity advice. All new headings follow MOS:HEAD’s requirement to capitalise only the first word and proper nouns (“Popularising Stoicism”, not “Popularising Stoicism And Media”). MOS:HEAD discourages compound headings with multiple “and”s. Each new heading covers a single idea; e.g., “Narrative nonfiction and reportage (2018)” groups Holiday’s only non-Stoic narrative book in one place, instead of scattering it. Moreover, chronological organisation complies with WP:CHRONO and MOS:ORDER: Headings proceed 2012→2024, making career progression clear and avoiding back-and-forth jumps seen in the earlier draft. Further, my changes include neutral tone per WP:NPOV: The previous draft used promotional phrases (“Publishing success”, “Influence and impact”). The new headings employ neutral descriptors (“Reception and influence”) that attribute opinions to reliable sources rather than Wikipedia’s voice. Finally, my changes provided topic balance per WP:WEIGHT: each heading corresponds to a major phase or theme substantiated by multiple independent sources (e.g., Stoic Virtues series 2021–24 has three NYT bestsellers). Trimming minor, single-book headings prevents undue weight. All of these changes make the article more compliant with the Manual of Style and easier to navigate.

::::* Drmies, I'm confused by your "expert" comment. Did I assert expertise somewhere?

::::* In summary, all of my edits should be restored. If you have further refinements or improvements, that's great, but the blanket reversion is improper for reasons listed above.IndyNotes (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::*:@IndyNotes

::::*:Response

::::*:I'll try to go point by point, but I want to highlight that it is these edits when combined that creates a significantly more promotional article. In response to your speculation about my motives, I will say that while I'm truly indifferent on Holiday, I do have a bias against using Wikipedia as a tool for advertising and will err on the side of less promotional text, especially with a professional marketer:

::::*:* I concede that my word search for "million" missed the 5m number. That citation then supports everything it is citing

::::*:* When I click the [https://www.wsj.com/articles/best-selling-books-week-ended-june-15-11561061607 WSJ link], the #1 bestseller is Unfreedom of the Press. I do not see Holiday's name anywhere on the list.

::::*:* The title of the NPR page is "NPR’s Book Concierge- Our Guide To 2018’s Great Reads"

::::*:* I think characterizing Holiday's writing as "exposés" or that he is responsible for "Popularising Stoicism" is subjective, which is where I object to them. The previous draft used the headers "Writing" (not "Publishing success") and "Impact" (not "Influence and impact")

::::*:Prior unaddressed objections

::::*:As for my earlier discussion points, can you address the following:

::::*:*I do not believe phrases such as "drew on his tenure as director of marketing at American Apparel to document—and unapologetically demonstrate—the ease with which online outlets can be “gamed”" and "the hardcover bore the Times “New York Times Bestseller” slug" reflect WP:NPOV

::::*:*Citations no longer accurately verify the information written such as "The [book] sparked debate in journalism schools and introduced Holiday’s trademark blend of anecdote and media theory"[https://www.businessinsider.com/trust-me-im-lying-will-make-you-question-everything-you-read-2012-8]

::::*:*As previously discussed, Holiday is a known "media manipulator." As a result, sources like WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and WP:TECHCRUNCH should be viewed more critically than normal.

::::*:*Half of the 28 citations are WP:PRIMARY; 8 are Holiday himself, 3 are interviews, and 3 are Bestseller stats.

::::*:*The London times review did not call his book "bracing but occasionally hectoring" but rather "an unintentionally hilarious amalgam of Tony Benn and Arnold Schwarzenegger...That’s not to say any of the advice is actually bad."

::::*:* Could you highlight some of the WP:PROMO material that you removed or other examples of BLP articles that use similar headings?

::::*:Recommended future edits

::::*:To move forward collaboratively, I would support removing the current paragraphs about The Obstacle is the Way through The Daily Stoic and replacing it with a modified version of your text:

::::*:Holiday shifted from media criticism to philosophy with The Obstacle Is the Way (2014). Drawing on Marcus Aurelius, he argued that setbacks can become advantages and found an audience in professional sports. Assistant to the New England Patriots Michael Lombardi recommended the book, including to John Schneider, general manager of the Seattle Seahawks, who distributed copies to his staff.​{{Cite magazine |last=Bishop |first=Greg |date=2015-12-08 |title=How a Book on Stoicism Became Wildly Popular at Every Level of the NFL |url=https://www.si.com/nfl/2015/12/08/ryan-holiday-nfl-stoicism-book-pete-carroll-bill-belichick |access-date=2025-01-15 |magazine=Sports Illustrated |language=en-US}} (AN: also the following sentence, if a citation can be found) The book reached No. 1 on the Wall Street Journal 2019 Bestseller List, five years after its initial release.

::::*:Holiday's next books were Ego Is the Enemy (2016) and the daily-reader The Daily Stoic (with Stephen Hanselman, 2016).{{cite web | author = Illing, Sean | date= January 12, 2017 | title = Are You an Egotist? Here's Why the Answer is Probably Yes | work = Vox.com | url = https://www.vox.com/2016/9/15/12902258/ego-ryan-holiday-freud-ego-is-the-enemy | access-date = January 26, 2017 }}

::::*:I would then support replacing the first sentence of "Impact" with:

::::*:A 2024 article in The Guardian called Holiday “a Silicon Valley guru,” noting that his books had sold at least five million copies and that his Daily Stoic brand (newsletter, podcast and social media) had amassed about three million followers.​{{cite news |last1=Williams |first1=Zoe |title=The stoicism secret: how Ryan Holiday became a Silicon Valley guru |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/oct/28/the-stoicism-secret-how-ryan-holiday-became-a-silicon-valley-guru |access-date=27 April 2025 |agency=The Guardian |date=28 October 2024}}

::::*:Vegantics (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC) Vegantics (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Regrettably, I won't have time to respond to all of this for quite some time. I disagree with some of it, but in the interest of time and collaboration, I'm fine with your proposed course of action. I will note, however, that the WSJ ranking does include Holiday's book, but it is the e-book version.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{talk reflist}}

== Request to restore constructive edits and build consensus ==

{{u|Drmies}}, {{u|Vegantics}},

I appreciate the vigilance against promotionalism, but the **full reversion** of {{u|IndyNotes}}’s 27-Apr edits removed several changes that actually brought the article **closer to Wikipedia’s own style and sourcing guidelines**. Per WP:BRD the bold edit has now been **reverted**; the next step is “discuss,” not leave the page in a clearly weaker state.

• **Headings** – The new headings comply with MOS:SECTIONHEAD and MOS:CHRONO (concise, sentence-case, chronological). The pre-revert headings (“Influence and impact”, “Publishing success”) are demonstrably promotional and violate WP:NPOV by inserting judgement words.
• **Tone** – Problematic phrases such as “Publishing success” were removed, replaced by neutral language that attributes commentary to sources (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV).
• **Sourcing** – Twelve **primary/self-published** refs in the older version were trimmed; secondary, independent coverage (e.g. *The Guardian*, *The Times*, NPR) was added, in line with WP:RS, balancing out the book-list bestseller tables that remain.
• **Balance** – The rewritten “Reception and influence” section added critical commentary that the article previously lacked, addressing long-standing tags about undue weight and promotionalism (WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROMO).

• Reliability objections to *Business Insider* and TechCrunch are fair (see WP:RSP), but those sources supported **routine, non-controversial** facts (publication dates, job titles). Where stronger citations exist we can swap them in, but wholesale deletion is unnecessary.
• The diff removed copy-edited sentences even when the underlying citation was untouched. If wording seemed “flowery,” let’s tweak, not torch: WP:PRESERVE recommends minimal necessary change.
• The allegation that adding a subtitle quote from *The Guardian* is “promotional” ignores that the quote is **direct, properly cited, and critical in tone**.

1. **Restore** the 27-Apr version (or place it in a sandbox/draft) as the working base.
2. Iterate collaboratively: flag any remaining wording you view as POV, and we can neutralise or source it.

Thanks ~ IndyNotes (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:@IndyNotes I can't tell if you're deliberately being dishonest or just lack understanding of Wikipedia policies and how edit histories work. I'll (again) try to go point by point:

:Per WP:BRD, you shouldn't have reverted my revert on your edits. The policy-recommended discussion is to seek consensus on the changes that you want to make, not justify why undoing your edits was the right call.

:Why the reverted version is preferable

:*Headings – The original headings also complied with MOS:SECTIONHEAD and MOS:CHRONO (concise, sentence-case, chronological). The pre-revert headings were not “Influence and impact” or “Publishing success”

:*Tone – Again, this is simply untrue

:*Sourcing – I corrected myself above, but of the seventeen references that you removed they were not all primary/self published. They included a New York Times book review, the Hollywood Reporter, and the Independent. I raised some objections above to the sources that you added, but also recognize the merit of some.

:*Balance – The original version did have (limited) critical commentary ("...when questioned about his role [in promoting Stoicism], he defended it "as a self-help strategy", and Alter notes that Holiday's approach "sound[s] more entrepreneurial than philosophic") that you removed. Each of your three arguments in the Reception sections begins with praise of Holiday only to follow it with a lesser criticism.

:Concerns raised in the revert

:*Reliability objections to *Business Insider* and TechCrunch - The TechCrunch citation is accompanied by other citations. Given your objections to large-scale reversion, you should not be arguing for the revert to your past version but rather to make corrections as needed. (Additionally, the Business Insider doesn't verify any of the information that it is citing, so I'm not sure how that would be fixed)

:*The diff removed copy-edited sentences even when the underlying citation was untouched. - If the underlying citation was untouched, that means it appeared in the original version of the article and you rewrote what information it was citing. By your own logic, why did you make changes that were not minimal or necessary?

:*The allegation that adding a subtitle quote from *The Guardian* is “promotional” ignores that the quote is **direct, properly cited, and critical in tone**. - Nobody alleged that. I did say that "I do not believe phrases such as "drew on his tenure as director of marketing at American Apparel to document—and unapologetically demonstrate—the ease with which online outlets can be “gamed”" and "the hardcover bore the Times “New York Times Bestseller” slug" reflect WP:NPOV." I am still interested in why that language should be added to the article.

:I'm going to leave this discussion be for a week or so and will revisit to ensure that I maintain a detached perspective. Vegantics (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think you missed my prior note in the heading above. IndyNotes (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I saw it. However, what you argued above is so untrue that I felt the need to respond. Vegantics (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IndyNotes] Doug Weller talk 16:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:For reference, here is the unbiased request for input: "Hello! There's an ongoing discussion about neutrality, tone, and sourcing on the Ryan Holiday article involving editors me and Vegantics. Given your experience with biographies and Wikipedia guidelines, your perspective would be valuable. If you have a moment, please share your thoughts here. Thanks in advance for your help!"--IndyNotes (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I’m sure you mean well. But do you see that asking for a third opinion and then doing this is contradictory? I also wonder how you picked these 3#, but that’s just my curiosity. Do you know about Requests for comment? W:RFC? If you ever do that, read the instructions very carefully, as I see too many fail for not being worded properly. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, I left a request for comment and it received no feedback. So I left messages for input on the first few dozen active administrators I could find. As noted, the requests for input were unbiased. The administrators have no connection to the topic nor to me, but are active in Wikipedia disagreements. Hope this helps!-- IndyNotes (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:I am one of the 32. {{u|IndyNotes}} says some flattering things about me (which are all true, of course) but Ryan Holiday seems to be the type of person that I have no interest in whatsoever. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I expect they're true about all of us, except possibly me (I'm another of the 32). What makes you think I have particular experience with biographies, IndyNotes? Bishonen | tålk 18:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC).

:::I left a request for comment and it received no feedback. So I left messages for input on the first few dozen active administrators I could find. As noted, the request for input was unbiased. The administrators have no connection to the topic nor to me, but are active in Wikipedia disagreements, and it appears some of those concern biography disagreements. Hope this helps. IndyNotes (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Not really. I'm surprised by your statement about "the first few dozen active administrators I could find". Most of the editors you have asked for input are not administrators. Doing a rough count... AFAICS, you have asked 4 admins and 28 non-admins. So what exactly is that about "active in Wikipedia disagreements"? Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC).

:::::All are active on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, or at least were the first ones I noticed while seeking further input. If providing input here doesn't interest you, you are certainly welcome to ignore it. -- IndyNotes (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wow. So first they were admins and now they're just active on ANI (which anybody can be)? You should be more careful of the claims you make, IndyNotes. I do have an opinion about the content you keep restoring, though: it's painfully promotional. E. g. "Ryan Holiday .. whose work has revived interest in classical Stoicism for a general readership"; "Holiday’s trademark blend of anecdote and media theory"; "a short manifesto that helped popularise Silicon Valley’s data-driven approach to product launches"; "The success of Obstacle—slow at first but propelled by word-of-mouth among athletes and CEOs". My italics, indicating unsourced and surely unsourcable compliments to Holiday. Painful! Bishonen | tålk 18:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC).

:::::::I was under the impression that ANI was mostly populated with admins, but I should've said first "editors" I could find. Thanks for your feedback on the article!-- IndyNotes (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{outdent}} Near as I can tell, this is essentially a content dispute and you're seeking additional input? I'm not sure I can offer much in the way of "advice", but here are some limited notes:

::::::::* In the Writing section, there are several items tagged as "non-primary source needed". In some cases, the tag is appropriate. In others, it is not necessary. An example of "not necessary" would be the statement of {{tq|The Daily Stoic reached No. 2 on the Wall Street Journal bestseller list in the Hardcover Business category}}. This is a simple statement of fact - no interpretive comment is made. A primary source is fine in this type of instance (refer to WP:PRIMARY). An example of maybe needed/maybe not would be {{tq|In 2023, Holiday published The Daily Dad, offering daily Stoic-inspired insights for fathers}} and the citation is the book itself. IF the book actually says somewhere that it offers "daily Stoic-inspired insights for fathers" then the primary source is OK. If that summary is interpretive, a secondary source needs to say it. So the tags should all be reviewed for whether a secondary source is actually needed.

::::::::* Similarly, in the personal life section, there's a non-primary source needed tag for the letters he wrote to his father. Like the note above, there is no interpretive element. The primary source may be adequate in this instance.

::::::::Obviously, we prefer secondary sources, but primary can apply to certain types of statements (i.e. statement of fact). However, without a secondary source, it may be difficult to suggest that the statement is notable. So address the "irrelevant examples" tag for the section, maybe more secondary sources should be sought for those items. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thank you, this is very helpful and underscores my objections to some of the reversions. -- IndyNotes (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::All due respect @IndyNotes, I appreciate you contacting me about this kind of thing I suppose, but I don't think I've ever even look at the "Administrators' noticeboard/incidents" page before today. In the circles of Stoicism I've been around I've only ever heard of Ryan Holiday talked about derisively, but I've never so much as looked at the WIkipedia page for one of his books. I do agree, however, that this article has some tone issues and reads like it was written by somebody who is a huge fan of Ryan, so take that as you will.

::::::JBrahms (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@JBrahms, as you'll note in the discussion below and elsewhere, I initially reached out narrowly to editors with Stoicism-related backgrounds. This was to follow Wikipedia best practice. You are part of the Stoic Stoic Wikipedians category. However, after receiving no response, I expanded my request to a few editors experienced in general dispute resolution. Of course, you are under no obligation to provide feedback, but given your Stoic interest I sought your input to help reach consensus. Thanks! IndyNotes (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some context may be helpful here. This article has long suffered from promotional language and bias, a concern first raised by a user in December 2022. At that time, I was pinged, agreed with the issues, and committed to helping as my schedule permitted. Recently, I undertook a substantial overhaul. While my revision did not eliminate all bias or promotion, it significantly improved upon the prior version.

:Instead of refining my revisions, however, user Vegantics completely reverted my edits. Vegantics cited the need for non-primary sources, but as ButlerBlog notes, the primary sources used were suitable for certain points. I strongly believe that working from and improving my draft would have been a far better solution than reverting it entirely. IndyNotes (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you and another editor disagree, then you need to work it out with that editor. Then, if there's a specific content dispute over which you cannot agree, then seek 3rd party input appropriately. "Appropriately" does not mean random pinging of a bunch of editors with "look at this article and give your input on what it needs". You need to identify specific elements - and not all at once in one discussion. You need to be specific with diffs, links to other relevant discussion, and have a policy/guideline/MOS based reason. Then with a more tightly focused area of disagreement between two editors, you can seek neutral third party input. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@ButlerBlog: Thanks very much for your feedback—I genuinely appreciate your engaging on this matter. My intention in posting was entirely neutral and in line with Wikipedia guidelines (WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONSENSUS). Initially, I did attempt to resolve this directly with the editor involved, but unfortunately, we didn't reach consensus. After focusing narrowly on editors with Stoicism-related backgrounds and receiving no response, I expanded my request to a few editors experienced in general dispute resolution. Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:RFC and WP:3O, do support seeking input more broadly to help reach consensus on general issues or disagreements. In hindsight, I acknowledge selecting editors could have been approached more carefully. My goal remains constructive dialogue and consensus-building. I look forward to your assistance and continued collaboration in improving the Ryan Holiday article. Thanks again for your thoughtful input! IndyNotes (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)