Talk:Stephen Leather: Difference between revisions

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

"Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects ..."

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP 85.210.145.172 (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is editing from various IP address in Bangkok, and repeatedly removing the sourced allegations about use of multiple Twitter accounts. If this doesn't stop, the page will need semi-protection. Lone boatman (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the page for one week, more having to do with the legal threats than the section removals. It won't work to block the IP hopper for the legal threats, so the only way to "block" them is through protection.

I am troubled by the Criticism section itself, though, which was added recently (by an IP). First, it has its own section and takes up a signficant chunk of the article prose. Second, it is based on one article, almost an op-ed, by one writer from one paper. I would feel more comfortable from a BLP perspective if it did not have its own section, was trimmed, and other sources supporting it could be found besides The Guardian.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original IP. I've now created an account. Considering the subject matter you might not believe this, but I'm just a random member of the public who doesn't like cheats. Yes, it has its own section, but that just seemed sensible to me. As for the size of it, perhaps it could be trimmed but in my opinion the overall shortness of the article shouldn't make too much difference. On the Johann Hari page there is a large section entitled Journalistic controversy, with sub-sections on Plagiarism, Orwell Prize withdrawal, and Wikipedia editing. I will look for other sources supporting it though.KoKingsmill (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, congratulations on creating an account. Second, I don't suspect people of agendas when they edit unless there's a persistent pattern (not present here). Third, it doesn't necessarily matter what other articles do. Finally, thanks for looking for more sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made the first deletion of this section as I felt it was inappropriate. The only amendments I made to the page after that were to insert a couple of citations - I'm certainly not in Bangkok!

Some of my reasons for the deletion were as follows:

"Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopaedic" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism);

"contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons).

The article used as a reference seemed (at least, to me) to be more of an opinion piece. In fact, I see other parts of this reference article have now been amended/removed, which discredits it's credence further.

The size of the added section is disproportionate to the remainder of the article and does not offer a balanced view. I still feel that without other reliable sources, it should be removed, particularly as it is a BLP. Sagaciousphil (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to make the criticism less undue. I've removed the section header (along with another) and merged the material into the section about his career. I've also shortened the material. I'm still not completely comfortable with having only one source to back up Cohen's claims. I've also removed the infobox as it had virtually nothing in it. His nationality is superflous as we know where he was born, and his website is in the External links section. So, all it had was the thriller genre.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another source (Daily Telegraph, another national newspaper) for the quote about multiple accounts. Lone boatman (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sagaciousphil, regarding you saying that you deleted the section because you felt it was inappropriate, if that's the case then why didn't you describe it as such instead of calling it vandalism?

Anyway, coming to this: "Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopaedic" It says in the preceding sentence: "Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections." Also as it says on that page: "Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia." I am happy to go along for now with what Bbb23 has done, which is to merge the information from that section into the rest of the article.

Regarding the reasons you found for removing it, this part is not relevant: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" - The Guardian is not a tabloid.

As for the first two sentences of that paragraph, I disagree that it is poorly sourced. And it doesn't have to offer a balanced view: if a person receives criticism and little praise then an article should reflect reality.

I found the following links yesterday which I've been reading through: http://maxdunbar.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/harrogate-crime-e-book-fun/

That one led me to this one: http://www.theleftroom.co.uk/?p=1731

And that one led me to this one: http://harrogateinternationalfestivals.com/crime/shop/wanted-for-murder-the-ebook/?utm_source=Theakstons+Old+Peculier+Crime+Writing+Festival&utm_campaign=b56b539419-Crime_12_Dec_2011_Jo_Nesbo_Announcement12_12_2011&utm_medium=email

So it seems there is an audio recording of that quote from Leather and him talking about using sockpuppets. As for the rest of the information in that Guardian article, although I don't know much about Cohen he does seem to have been around for a while, so between him and The Guardian I'm sure they would understand the risk of getting sued for libel and so would have evidence to back up the rest of that article. KoKingsmill (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching this page for a while and see that there is some controversy surrounding Cohen. I think the way that it is written in the article is borderline appropriate due to the WEIGHT. However, since it has been sourced as part of his marketing campaign, I would go for leaving it in the article in its current form.

Also, I have done some major improvements including adding his books and screenplays (I sent an email requesting an image - we'll see if I get a response). Hopefully this will take away any previously expressed concerns about NPOV.--Morning277 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Morning277, I feel the way you've incorporated Bbb23's amended wording into your comprehensively re-vamped article is (for me) a more than acceptable compromise/solution. You must have done a tremendous amount of work on this! Sagaciousphil (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was not difficult as there is tons of press out there on this guy. --Morning277 (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]