|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm somewhat sceptical of two sets of anonymous edits (which might or might not be by the same person)
(by 22.214.171.124 / host86-166-226-216.range86-166.btcentralplus.com, BT DSL, somewhere in the UK)
There is some blatant POV and obvious bias in the edit (e.g. "While all these rumors fed the diseased mind of many", "no doubt more influential") and factually correct information that nonetheless seems to be chosen to support the author's agenda, e.g. "According to Manolo Blahnik (who did not personally know Guy Bourdin)".
(by 126.96.36.199 / host-84-9-122-20.dslgb.com, who knows, "DSL G.B.?")
Similar here; "But these life choices made it possible for the press to hijack his biography after his death by relating mostly invented negative traits of his character and constantly feeding on previous sensationalist articles portraying Guy as a monster. Nothing is further from the truth. "
I'm not claiming that the original was unbiased (and it's quite possible to create a biased article either way with selective use of facts and/or the context or manner in which they are used). But these two sets of edits seem transparently biased towards the guy, even if you take out the blatant POV stuff. I'll revert them for now- any thoughts? Ubcule (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)