![]() | Hugh Walpole is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2015. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Doesn't the discussion of whether Evelyn Waugh was a homosexual belong in a background discussion, rather than in the main article?
Moved from article:
Evelyn Waugh who wasn't homosexual but twice married. Evelyn Waugh? He was married twice and scarcely merits inclusion with this lot.
Waugh may have married and fathered children but then that has never stopped anyone from conducting homosexual affairs. Waugh wrote about homosexuality and according to some biographers conducted affairs with men. Does it make him homosexual, not necessarily. Does it merit his inclusion with other authors what he spent time with? Absolutely.
I've read that he died as a result of over-exertion during war-work.
Do we know anything about the duties he performed in WW2? 109.157.18.114 ( talk) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that Walpole's medal for bravery was the Cross of St George (4th Class) - see http://www.gwpda.org/medals/russmedl/russia.html - rather than the Times's "Georgian Medal" - that's certainly what Hart-Davis says (page 139 of the 1985 reprint), though he doesn't mention which class Walpole received. According to the website above two million of these were awarded, and successive acts of bravery promoted the recipient from 4th to 3rd class, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Peardew ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
A recent addition mucks up the referencing of this featured article. If the additional info is really wanted (v. doubtful, in my view), the referencing must follow the existing format, and all the citations to the H-D biography will need to have the year attached to them to distinguish them from the other H-D book introduced in this recent addition. I don't propose to undertake this very considerable task for an addition I feel is of minor interest, but if the editor concerned wishes to undertake it, I shall not demur. Other contributors to the article may have a view on the matter: comments welcome, naturally. Tim riley talk 07:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor keeps removing a quotation from Peter Hitchens from the article on the grounds that it is tainted by association with the Daily Mail. The latter is rightly proscribed as a WP:RS for factual matters or reliabilty of quotations, but printing the relevant opinions of an eminent journalist is not remotely within the scope of the WP:RS consensus on the Mail. Tim riley talk 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The Mail on Sunday has been confirmed as covered by WP:DAILYMAIL at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarification:_Does_Daily_Mail_RfC_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday?, unless and until there's a fresh RFC carving out an exception.
We went through the status of this source at
WP:DAILYMAIL1 and
WP:DAILYMAIL2. Please stop deliberately re-adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia, in violation of
WP:BURDEN (twice now) - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source
, which is not the DM.
If you really want to use the Daily Mail as a source, or carve out an exception for reviews or whatever, you would need an RFC at WP:RSN. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, it's not valid to claim you can carve it out on a local talk page - David Gerard ( talk) 22:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited. You seem to be assuming that exceptions exist, therefore your desired exception must be one - David Gerard ( talk) 13:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The RFC said that Dailly Mail is "generally" unreliable. But here we have a reliable critic, so citing him is permitted under the RFC. To simply delete anything and everything that appeared in Daily Mail is robotic. The word "generally" in the RFC must *mean* something, and including a review by a well-known critic is what it meant. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
including a review by a well-known critic is what it meantThis appears to be surmise on your part. What parts of the RFC conclusions say that? - David Gerard ( talk) 22:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sure we will all cheerfully abide by the RFC's decision on this case.Good to hear that. Removing per RFC - David Gerard ( talk) 13:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
What decision? I am not aware of any RFC here. Tim riley talk 13:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure you are showing yourself up in a good light here. You go to an RFC without alerting anyone you fear may disagree with you, and you scatter suggestions here of bad faith on my part in "affecting" (your word) not to understand the torrent of verbiage you have spewed out. If you cannot, in plain words, point to a decision that the quotation is inadmissible I shall continue to view your views as unsubstantiated. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 16:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Removed the deprecated source once more. Under
WP:BURDEN - which is policy - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
Given that the MoS is deprecated, thus prima facie not a reliable source, this means its addition or re-addition must be justified in terms of the exceptions noted on
WP:DEPS. Adding a deprecated source without doing so is deliberately adding known bad sourcing to Wikipedia, and thus disruptive editing -
David Gerard (
talk)
15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Policy on this matter is given in WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author". Sometimes people forget that a source is not just the publication, but also the author; per WP:SOURCEDEF: "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) / The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) / The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) / Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." In short, an opinion by an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject is in itself a reliable source. If the question here is "Is an opinion by an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject made unreliable by the publication source?" then the answer is no. As we tend to prefer our commentators on Foo to be experts on Foo rather than Poo, the true question for the use of the Hitchens quote in the Walpole article is "Is Peter Hitchens regarded as authoritative in relation to Hugh Walpole?" If he is, then all is fine; if he is not, then the quote is mere whimsy and the opinion is not notable (unless, of course, the opinion itself became the subject of discussion by reliable sources). SilkTork ( talk) 03:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Hugh Walpole is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2015. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Doesn't the discussion of whether Evelyn Waugh was a homosexual belong in a background discussion, rather than in the main article?
Moved from article:
Evelyn Waugh who wasn't homosexual but twice married. Evelyn Waugh? He was married twice and scarcely merits inclusion with this lot.
Waugh may have married and fathered children but then that has never stopped anyone from conducting homosexual affairs. Waugh wrote about homosexuality and according to some biographers conducted affairs with men. Does it make him homosexual, not necessarily. Does it merit his inclusion with other authors what he spent time with? Absolutely.
I've read that he died as a result of over-exertion during war-work.
Do we know anything about the duties he performed in WW2? 109.157.18.114 ( talk) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that Walpole's medal for bravery was the Cross of St George (4th Class) - see http://www.gwpda.org/medals/russmedl/russia.html - rather than the Times's "Georgian Medal" - that's certainly what Hart-Davis says (page 139 of the 1985 reprint), though he doesn't mention which class Walpole received. According to the website above two million of these were awarded, and successive acts of bravery promoted the recipient from 4th to 3rd class, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Peardew ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
A recent addition mucks up the referencing of this featured article. If the additional info is really wanted (v. doubtful, in my view), the referencing must follow the existing format, and all the citations to the H-D biography will need to have the year attached to them to distinguish them from the other H-D book introduced in this recent addition. I don't propose to undertake this very considerable task for an addition I feel is of minor interest, but if the editor concerned wishes to undertake it, I shall not demur. Other contributors to the article may have a view on the matter: comments welcome, naturally. Tim riley talk 07:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor keeps removing a quotation from Peter Hitchens from the article on the grounds that it is tainted by association with the Daily Mail. The latter is rightly proscribed as a WP:RS for factual matters or reliabilty of quotations, but printing the relevant opinions of an eminent journalist is not remotely within the scope of the WP:RS consensus on the Mail. Tim riley talk 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The Mail on Sunday has been confirmed as covered by WP:DAILYMAIL at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarification:_Does_Daily_Mail_RfC_apply_to_the_Mail_on_Sunday?, unless and until there's a fresh RFC carving out an exception.
We went through the status of this source at
WP:DAILYMAIL1 and
WP:DAILYMAIL2. Please stop deliberately re-adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia, in violation of
WP:BURDEN (twice now) - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source
, which is not the DM.
If you really want to use the Daily Mail as a source, or carve out an exception for reviews or whatever, you would need an RFC at WP:RSN. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, it's not valid to claim you can carve it out on a local talk page - David Gerard ( talk) 22:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited. You seem to be assuming that exceptions exist, therefore your desired exception must be one - David Gerard ( talk) 13:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The RFC said that Dailly Mail is "generally" unreliable. But here we have a reliable critic, so citing him is permitted under the RFC. To simply delete anything and everything that appeared in Daily Mail is robotic. The word "generally" in the RFC must *mean* something, and including a review by a well-known critic is what it meant. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
including a review by a well-known critic is what it meantThis appears to be surmise on your part. What parts of the RFC conclusions say that? - David Gerard ( talk) 22:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sure we will all cheerfully abide by the RFC's decision on this case.Good to hear that. Removing per RFC - David Gerard ( talk) 13:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
What decision? I am not aware of any RFC here. Tim riley talk 13:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure you are showing yourself up in a good light here. You go to an RFC without alerting anyone you fear may disagree with you, and you scatter suggestions here of bad faith on my part in "affecting" (your word) not to understand the torrent of verbiage you have spewed out. If you cannot, in plain words, point to a decision that the quotation is inadmissible I shall continue to view your views as unsubstantiated. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 16:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Removed the deprecated source once more. Under
WP:BURDEN - which is policy - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
Given that the MoS is deprecated, thus prima facie not a reliable source, this means its addition or re-addition must be justified in terms of the exceptions noted on
WP:DEPS. Adding a deprecated source without doing so is deliberately adding known bad sourcing to Wikipedia, and thus disruptive editing -
David Gerard (
talk)
15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Policy on this matter is given in WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author". Sometimes people forget that a source is not just the publication, but also the author; per WP:SOURCEDEF: "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) / The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) / The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) / Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." In short, an opinion by an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject is in itself a reliable source. If the question here is "Is an opinion by an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject made unreliable by the publication source?" then the answer is no. As we tend to prefer our commentators on Foo to be experts on Foo rather than Poo, the true question for the use of the Hitchens quote in the Walpole article is "Is Peter Hitchens regarded as authoritative in relation to Hugh Walpole?" If he is, then all is fine; if he is not, then the quote is mere whimsy and the opinion is not notable (unless, of course, the opinion itself became the subject of discussion by reliable sources). SilkTork ( talk) 03:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)