Talk:David Gilmour (writer)

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)

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)

Not sure if a blog can count as a source but I've seen this pop up in my FB newsfeed a few times over the last couple of days - http://bellejarblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/an-open-letter-to-david-gilmour/ TheTyrant (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)TheTyrant

Or perhaps this will work better - http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/holger-syme/holger-syme-david-gilmour_b_3996818.html TheTyrant (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)TheTyrant