|
||
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article included a section called "Criticisms", until it was deleted by Zero Serenity on 22 January 2017 with the comment "This section doesn't fit into BLP." However, it is common to include criticisms and WP:BLP explicitly says that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." So I am having trouble reconciling that position with the section blanking that was done here, and I would value other opinions - should there be such a section? -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 02:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Please explain: "trumped up" and "feels off" RobP ( talk) 12:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I just discovered that the Public Speaking section was deleted in one or more edits with little (or no) explanation. I am going to reinstate it now. Before deleting again discuss and get consensus here. RobP ( talk) 16:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
(Sorry, I don't know how to do that nice line thing to bring it back to the left hand side :D) Ok going by Drmies's advice I say don't reinstate the section. The three best citations I found are for the 'Unholy Trinity Tour', Richard Dawkins website newspaper and this one used in the original edit. The newspaper one discusses the tour properly, but the other two are more like adverts for it. As for his other speaking events, I only found the events' websites and blogs which isn't going to work. So I think one could maybe put in a sentence about that tour only using the newspaper ref. The rest of it isn't notable enough. Hope that helps. Mramoeba ( talk) 00:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Softlavender: I added a third photo to this article which you objected to and deleted with comment as follows: "article does not need three images; this is excess promotionalism. Choose two." So how did you come to the conclusion that two photos besides the infobox pic is one too many? I have seen articles with no photos and some with tons and everything in between - so how does a person know what is over the line? Certainly 3 doesn't seem excessive to me based upon other articles. See: Neal Dow from the main page today, with eight in all - one in each section (which I for one very much like)... or some others I just randomly looked at off the top of my head to have a wide sampling of types of people from different fields: Phil Plait (3), Mark Zuckerberg (5), Mother Teresa (9), John Glenn (17), Mr. T (3), Deepak Chopra (3), Carl Sagan (12).
So is there a WP policy in this regard linking an amount of text (or perhaps the number of sections?) to an "appropriate" number of photos? Or is this just a judgment call on your part? And if that is the case, how can any uniformity be had? Different editors will have different opinions.... and depending which articles a set of concerned editors patrol, the results will be very different from article to article (as appears to be the case).
Also, what are the rules about using a gallery instead of individual photos? Using a gallery would mean a bunch of photos by definition, and in your opinion, excess promotionalism. But what is the point of WP having a <gallery> tag to allow groups of photos, if just two photos per article (besides the one in the infobox) is considered too much and "overly promotional." Rp2006 ( talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I was flagged by Softlavender for appearing "to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Seth Andrews," but I didn't revert anything. I added an additional piece of information based on the most current interview he did regarding his political/religious views and how his political views changed when he left his faith. Given that the article is about an atheist activist and political commentator, I believe his political opinions are extremely relevant information. And given that it's from an interview with the actual subject of this article and that he himself re-tweeted the interview, it's fair to say it's a reliable presentation of his beliefs. Is there actually a good reason why my contribution was taken down? I would like to reinstate it. Would this be better to put under a new section labeled "Political Views?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitehandnerdy ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. What's the problem here? The edit summary alluded to BLP concerns (self-identification) but obviously that doesn't pertain to Hitchens. Hitchens is undoubtedly a New Atheist, is he not? If this is a problem I can quickly produce The Oxford Handbook of Atheism and a review of Why God Won't Go Away: Engaging With The New Atheism by Alister McGrath ("'the New Atheism' comprises the recent works of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens"). Or am I missing something? - Bri.public ( talk) 23:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Was there such a thing? and if so how do I find it? פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 01:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
|
||
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article included a section called "Criticisms", until it was deleted by Zero Serenity on 22 January 2017 with the comment "This section doesn't fit into BLP." However, it is common to include criticisms and WP:BLP explicitly says that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." So I am having trouble reconciling that position with the section blanking that was done here, and I would value other opinions - should there be such a section? -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 02:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Please explain: "trumped up" and "feels off" RobP ( talk) 12:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I just discovered that the Public Speaking section was deleted in one or more edits with little (or no) explanation. I am going to reinstate it now. Before deleting again discuss and get consensus here. RobP ( talk) 16:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
(Sorry, I don't know how to do that nice line thing to bring it back to the left hand side :D) Ok going by Drmies's advice I say don't reinstate the section. The three best citations I found are for the 'Unholy Trinity Tour', Richard Dawkins website newspaper and this one used in the original edit. The newspaper one discusses the tour properly, but the other two are more like adverts for it. As for his other speaking events, I only found the events' websites and blogs which isn't going to work. So I think one could maybe put in a sentence about that tour only using the newspaper ref. The rest of it isn't notable enough. Hope that helps. Mramoeba ( talk) 00:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Softlavender: I added a third photo to this article which you objected to and deleted with comment as follows: "article does not need three images; this is excess promotionalism. Choose two." So how did you come to the conclusion that two photos besides the infobox pic is one too many? I have seen articles with no photos and some with tons and everything in between - so how does a person know what is over the line? Certainly 3 doesn't seem excessive to me based upon other articles. See: Neal Dow from the main page today, with eight in all - one in each section (which I for one very much like)... or some others I just randomly looked at off the top of my head to have a wide sampling of types of people from different fields: Phil Plait (3), Mark Zuckerberg (5), Mother Teresa (9), John Glenn (17), Mr. T (3), Deepak Chopra (3), Carl Sagan (12).
So is there a WP policy in this regard linking an amount of text (or perhaps the number of sections?) to an "appropriate" number of photos? Or is this just a judgment call on your part? And if that is the case, how can any uniformity be had? Different editors will have different opinions.... and depending which articles a set of concerned editors patrol, the results will be very different from article to article (as appears to be the case).
Also, what are the rules about using a gallery instead of individual photos? Using a gallery would mean a bunch of photos by definition, and in your opinion, excess promotionalism. But what is the point of WP having a <gallery> tag to allow groups of photos, if just two photos per article (besides the one in the infobox) is considered too much and "overly promotional." Rp2006 ( talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I was flagged by Softlavender for appearing "to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Seth Andrews," but I didn't revert anything. I added an additional piece of information based on the most current interview he did regarding his political/religious views and how his political views changed when he left his faith. Given that the article is about an atheist activist and political commentator, I believe his political opinions are extremely relevant information. And given that it's from an interview with the actual subject of this article and that he himself re-tweeted the interview, it's fair to say it's a reliable presentation of his beliefs. Is there actually a good reason why my contribution was taken down? I would like to reinstate it. Would this be better to put under a new section labeled "Political Views?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitehandnerdy ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. What's the problem here? The edit summary alluded to BLP concerns (self-identification) but obviously that doesn't pertain to Hitchens. Hitchens is undoubtedly a New Atheist, is he not? If this is a problem I can quickly produce The Oxford Handbook of Atheism and a review of Why God Won't Go Away: Engaging With The New Atheism by Alister McGrath ("'the New Atheism' comprises the recent works of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens"). Or am I missing something? - Bri.public ( talk) 23:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Was there such a thing? and if so how do I find it? פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 01:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)