User talk:Philip Cross
|This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philip_Cross.
- 1 Yes Sirey
- 2 WikiProject Women writers Invitation
- 3 Criticism of the BBC
- 4 Doctor Who
- 5 Grant Shapps
- 6 Books and Bytes - Issue 8
- 7 Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP
- 8 Interesting info
- 9 New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)
- 10 Dasha Zuhukova
- 11 Tommy Sheridan
- 12 Apologies
- 13 Julien Blanc edits
Thanks for your edit, but I've long been aware of an inconsistency in our presentation of British people with honours. On the same page, neither Thatcher nor Major are presented as they should be formally styled. Is this just a WP:COMMONNAME thing? I remain, as ever, etc... :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Gareth. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Changed names for an answer to your point: "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." In the case of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, the two politicians did not possess a peerage or knighthood at the time Penny Junor wrote her respective biography of them. Philip Cross (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Women writers Invitation
Criticism of the BBC
Amusing that you dismiss Doctor Who as a minor part of the BBC's output in 1976 when it was actually at the height of its ratings, regularly attracting 11-13 million viewers on a Saturday evening and Tom Baker was one of the most recognizable actors on TV. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was then a minor part of BBC Drama, and the resources allocated to it were much lower than for more critically prestigious BBC productions of the time. The Saturday teatime slot was not peak-time scheduling, and for this era, the ratings of Doctor Who were lower than say, Coronation Street or This is Your Life. Philip Cross (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I quote: "These stories also benefited from the fact that they were made during a period now widely regarded as a golden age of BBC drama, with extremely high production values being achieved across the entire range of series, serials and plays. Having reached an almost unprecedented level of popularity, Doctor Who was at this time regarded as one of the BBC's flagship programmes, and the production team were able to call upon not only the highest real-terms budget the series had ever had but also some of the cream of the Corporation's considerable creative talent to help bring it to the screen." (Howe-Stammers- Walker "Doctor Who - The Seventies") Rodericksilly (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Inevitably, in a book written for, and presumably written by, Doctor Who fans you are going to find a quote like that. It won't be typical of many general surveys of television drama. Michael Grade's rather clichéd comment about "clunky Daleks that couldn't go up and down stairs" is rather more typical. Philip Cross (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Michal Grade wasn't involved until eight years later (1984), and he was speaking about that era, the early/mid-1980s, not the mid-1970s. Its bizarre to claim that Tom Baker was not one of the most recognizable actors on British TV at the time; he built a 30-year career from his work on the show. Production values for it in 1976 would, of course, look ridiculous to anyone watching today -- that was consistent with other TV series in 1976 generally, and it compares quite favorably with other BBC series of the time period.
- I remember the show in the 1970s. Its was quite popular. You'd walk into a bar, or a hotel room lobby, and if there was a tv on in the background (as was common then), it wasn't rare that the show on would be Dr. Who.
- At the time, sci-fi, and really anything that was popular, tended to be looked-down upon by those who cared about "serious drama." That was the critical standard of the era. See, for example, the NY Times review of Star Wars -- I think the quote was "legs as rickety as C3PO." Djcheburashka (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Philip, this has been one of the more controversial political bios I've seen and it took a long time to get it straightened out. The problem is with a living politician the temptation is to list every story written and it's difficult to prevent the wiki becoming ludicrously long. I haven't undone your edit back, instead I propose that we try to shorten the section which is already disproportionately long to other current day sections which could do with a bit of updating anyway. By all means come back to me. But I'll wait a couple of days and if I've not heard back edit it down in length without losing meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contribsx (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have just removed the alleged false names, which is what I was referring to in my edit summary. In an article now running to 32k, I don't see how the handful of lines on this claim and the "political smear" counter-claim (both properly cited) could be reduced any further without, as you put it, "losing meaning." Philip Cross (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 8
Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP
|Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
The info you added is quite interesting. I found a reference to the film while going over some old papers, and I looked it up. All of this is quite fascinating, is it? :) --Katafore (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)
- DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
- Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
- Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
- British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
- Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
- Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
- JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You edited the Dasha Zhukova piece to restore a prior version that had been changed in several ways after the topics were brought up on the talk page. In particular, you restored a large body of material that had either no source, or where the sources referred only to each other -- i.e., which were created for Zhukova's P.R. In addition, you restored some material that had been removed because of copyright problems.
The reason we bring these things up on the talk page is so that people can object before hand. And if they want to object later, they can continue the discussion.
When you ignore the talk page and revert a whole set of edits, that undermines the process of consensus.
It is worse, here, because the descriptions you put for your edits were incorrect -- you had not made just small changes or removed honorifics, you actually reverted weeks worth of changes be several different people whose purpose was to take out unsourced, hagiographic, and copyrighted material.
Please don't do that again.
- My principal change was the inclusion of quotes from the Viv Groskop interview published in August 2008 which was properly cited, and is nothing to do with the copyvio issue from last May mentioned on the talk page. Zuhukova does not come over well in the quotes I used. That Viv Groskop is fairly sympathetic to her interviewee is no reason to desist from including Groskop's article as a source.
- Only the BBC source you added really counts as a reliable source and that article's brief mention lists his football playing as a "hobby", rather than a career. You will find the Mirror newspaper has a very low reputation on this site as a source. There is very limited evidence for notability concerning this passage, quite apart from the failure to distinguish between Sheridan's playing as an adolescent, when it might have fleetingly have seemed like a real career option, and as an adult playing essentially as an amateur. Philip Cross (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
... for having briefly listed Robert Maxwell as an unsolved death. I had thought there was still some credible dispute regarding the facts of the case and whether any of them directly conflicted with the official conclusion, but after looking around I haven't found that any exist in reliable sources. So you were right.
(Of course, only the idea that he was pushed seems to have been ruled out, or at least no evidence of that was found on the body. But a lot still turned on the question of whether he jumped or just fell ... Whatever). Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Julien Blanc edits
Hey I'm trying hard to make Julien Blanc more neutral, I would really appreciate it if you didn't revert my major changes for small reasons such as not citing a term. You can instead change the term or cite it yourself.
- No you are not. You are introducing your point of view, like describing Jenn Li as a "self styled activist." That term has not been used in any source I have read. The extended passage you added on Julien Blanc's apologies on CNN replicated what had already been added. Third party sources about his appearance on the network have been negative, so making too much of the brief item makes it more likely that someone will add some of them. In any case, WP:UNDUE potentially applies to all articles, so I am not the only editor who is likely to remove the passage. Philip Cross (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)