Talk:David Gilmour (writer): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:19, 27 September 2013

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Journalism Stub‑class

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canada Unassessed

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

No controversy cited in controversy section

I agree that the RH interview was notable, but there is no controversy or criticism of his remarks cited in that section, which makes it unfair to call it a "controversy" unless the only goal was to shame him because the WP editor found his remarks despicable. That is not the purpose of WP, this is not the comment section of the RH post or a social media network (the only places where I saw this controversy), so we would need some actual published critics lambasting him for the remarks or some censure from his school etc. to keep that label or even the section. JesseRafe (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this section for this reason. Claiming there was a 'controversy' without any sources (even the source for the interview was a dead link) is a violation of WP:BLP. Robofish (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:18, 27 September 2013 edit Robofish (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 99,579 edits added wikiproject template ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:19, 27 September 2013 edit undo Robofish (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 99,579 edits →No controversy cited in controversy section: replied Next edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:

	I agree that the RH interview was notable, but there is no controversy or criticism of his remarks cited in that section, which makes it unfair to call it a "controversy" unless the only goal was to shame him because the WP editor found his remarks despicable. That is not the purpose of WP, this is not the comment section of the RH post or a social media network (the only places where I saw this controversy), so we would need some actual published critics lambasting him for the remarks or some censure from his school etc. to keep that label or even the section. [[User:JesseRafe\|JesseRafe]] ([[User talk:JesseRafe\|talk]]) 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)		I agree that the RH interview was notable, but there is no controversy or criticism of his remarks cited in that section, which makes it unfair to call it a "controversy" unless the only goal was to shame him because the WP editor found his remarks despicable. That is not the purpose of WP, this is not the comment section of the RH post or a social media network (the only places where I saw this controversy), so we would need some actual published critics lambasting him for the remarks or some censure from his school etc. to keep that label or even the section. [[User:JesseRafe\|JesseRafe]] ([[User talk:JesseRafe\|talk]]) 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
			:I've removed this section for this reason. Claiming there was a 'controversy' without any sources (even the source for the interview was a dead link) is a violation of [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Robofish\|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish\|talk]]) 16:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)