Talk:Clarion (programming language)

Unreferenced / What's the POV issue here?

I've tagged this article for its complete lack of references. I'm going to delete some of the trivial info. Phyesalis 06:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the code examples as they were possible copyright infringements and made an already too-long article even longer. And they lacked sources. Something should be done about the history section - way too long. How does the history of JPI relate to the notability of Clarion? As the article is currently written, its notability is dubious. This article seriously needs some acceptable sources, papers written about it and that kind of thing to help clarify its notability and give the article s ome credibility. Phyesalis 06:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been inside and outside of Clarion for the last 17 years (I wrote the documentation from 1991-1998), and I see nothing here that's glaringly incorrect. So, what's the problem? Docmaster 20:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Every single person who edited this page did so to praise the language, and this is the only contribution to Wikipedia the users ever did. This includes you, too. It's just blatant promotion of the language by people who work or have worked on it, and that sort of thing doesn't belong here. Besides, this talk page is here to discuss the Wikipedia article on Clarion, and not the language itself or any of its merits whatever those may be. Leave that for Clarion-related websites, thank you. — Kieff | Talk 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying "nothing here that's glaringly incorrect" is far from praise and blatant promotion. There are negative points raised in the article, and these also fall into the category of "not glaringly incorrect."

As for your statement "this talk page is here to discuss the Wikipedia article on Clarion" -- that's exactly what I was doing by asking this question.

The article DOES present an accurate narrative of the history of the language's development, with failures discussed as well as what success it has had. Therefore, there is no relevant POV issue in that regard.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be about presenting the facts. Just because you don't like those facts, don't attack them by raising the bugaboo of "blatant promotion." A features list of a commercial product in an article about that product cannot be construed to be other than a listing of facts about that product -- and certainly should not be labelled "blatant promotion." Therefore, there is no relevant POV issue in that regard, either.

So, again, what's the real beef here? Richard 18:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docmaster (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the beef is that this article reads like an ad for the product. Why is this subject notable? I'm not arguing for the article's deletion, but I think there needs to be more text about its notablity and less about how easy it is so easy to use. It also requires a ton of citation. It should be tagged for sourcing. Phyesalis 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I undid the deletions made by Phyesalis on 3-Nov-2007. Justification : too aggresive a deletion. Phyesalis claimed that various statements were POV, but I believe they are factual are suited for inclusion. Example "Templates are open for developers to modify ..." is a statement of fact about a major feature of the product and certainly should not have been removed. Ditto for various other text that was deleted. GrandPoohBah 13:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to changes. They were not aggressive given the fact that the majority of info removed has possible copyright issues. The article needs citations. Suggest editors cite sources and obtain permission to include code examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Only the source code has possible copyright problems, I cant see any problems with the rest of the stuff that you deleted. Are you expecting citations for every point in this article ? that sounds a little ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPoohBah (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the code presents issues, and it was a large part of what I deleted. But as for ridiculous, how about any point in the article? That might be a good start. I am expecting, as this is an article on software that it meet Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), namely, that this article contain several non-trivial discussions of the product produced by a party other than the author/s. Press releases and trivial coverage do not count. And, as info not cited or sourced, it may be removed if challenged. I challenge it. Given the lack of sources and non-trivial discussion of the subject, this article (as it is currently written) should be deleted. However, work could be done to highlight this subject's notability, but again, as the article stands, it's notability is not clear. If the subject is indeed notable, there should be some reliable third-party discussion of it in a tech journal/mag. Phyesalis 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I cant do much about adding citations myself, but Ive added a new NOTABILITY section. This needs to be enhanced and probably cleaned up (my writing style is not the best), but its a good start GrandPoohBah 00:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK.. I added some references to this article by looking at the wikipedia explanation of hous it should be done as well as what constitutes a reference. Where in doubt, I also looked at how the Microsoft Visual Studio entry was done and did the same.

I agree that a few screenshots of the workings of the product is in order, and we need to cut down on the history part. It does nothing to explain the product and it's capabilities. Riebens - 1 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.101.2 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the installs of all Clarion versions on my hard disk I entered more details into history. Also confirmed in the help file the addition of some significant changes. I'm also going to try to undelete the code examples. Other languages (VB, Delphi and C) contain code examples without copyright. I wrote the originals by translating other langugae examples into Clarion. It's a friken article about a programming language so it should show examples. Carl Barnes January 2, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.235.47 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I added back the code examples that I originally added. The reason is this article is about a programming language and other programmers want to see what the code looks like. I also added an OOP example that I converted from a simple example on the Oject Pascal page. I added a link to the comp.lang.clarion group, IMO it establishes that Clarion is a language with a following. Clarion is no different then FoxPro, Visual Basic or Delphi. Carl Barnes.

marketing personel

personnel would be the correct version. as it only mentions Kahn what is trying to be said here? 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes on tags

A couple of things since I just added {{notability}} and {{Refimprove}} to the article:

• As the article stands right now, there's very little in the way of inline references. Many claims are made (especially in the Notability section) but no references or sources are provided to back up those claims. That's not good.
• During the mid to late 80s there was a 4GL marketing craze (at least as I remember it), and many languages were introduced which gained no respectable marketshare or following. As far as I can tell, this language was never notable and still isn't (though the AFD appears to be heading towards keep, despite my plea for anything that might establish this as notable). Even if this article is kept, it still needs to establish notability through reliable sources (which help keep things verifiable). As it is, most of this article (in its present, unsourced state) is original research and should probably be either a) trimmed back heavily or b) sourced with inline sources.

Hopefully there's some sources out there for this stuff and it can get sorted out. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)