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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 John Pilger
- 2 MNail?
- 3 Judith Newman
- 4 Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
- 5 Enid Blyton
- 6 diana
- 7 A cup of tea for you!
- 8 UKIP & Guns
- 9 Doreen Gorsky/Stephens
- 10 BFI Twitter quote on The Elstree Project
- 11 DYK for Georgina Henry
- 12 Piers Morgan
- 13 Guinness
- 14 Parentheses
- 15 PIE and Associated Labour Politicians
- 16 Books & Bytes, Issue 4
- 17 Re: Abby Martin
- 18 PIE and Peter Hain
- 19 Cybersmile
- 20 John Gielgud
- 21 Soliciting comment...
Please take a second look at the edit to John Pilger that you just reverted. The sentence had the same verb In two different places. I am going to reinstate the edit -- please read with care before reverting again! Nandt1 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I made a grammatical slip, but the current version repeats documentary. Perhaps "programme" should be substituted for the second use of the noun? In the edit summary BTW, you were right about me trying to work around avoiding a small cut in the ITC quote. Philip Cross (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
When you reverted my edit to the article, did you think I was referencing my own entry in the Talk page? I wasn't. I was referring to other threads in the talk page (specifically, the statement by JHP). I wrote that section in the talk page 15 minutes after I edited the article. I thought it might be a good place to discuss this issue of notability, as it's bothered me in the past. I wasn't trying to recursively toot my own horn. ;-)> Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should really have said self-published in the edit summary. Wikipedia's Identifying reliable sources policy says that sources should be from published sources which have been through an editing process, like my hypothetical technology writer. A policy page about self-published sources states that: "Self-published sources may not be used for any claims about living people, except for claims made by the author about himself (or herself)." So Wikipedia policy applies to my comments as much as yours. Philip Cross (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the clarification. I was thinking about discussing the issue in the NYT itself, if they open the article for discussion. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Could you have a look at the Enid Blyton article, particularly this section as it appears to have been hijacked by a reader of the Daily Mail. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Paul, I can see what you mean. Will keep returning to the article until the problem is resolved. Philip Cross (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. The article needs a lot of work, particularly to replace the the things cited to the Daily Mail - which is not a reliable source - and the OR and opinions inserted by Daily Mail readers, who are usually little more than closet extreme rightists, given the Daily Mail's orientation. Paul Austin (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
UKIP & Guns
Please refer to talk page. On this issue, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia that relies on facts. " looks pretty firm for a future manifesto" is heresay, it is not encyclopedic, it is not fact, it has no place on Wikipedia. Please see full reasoning for reverting edit on talk page. If you simply revert my edit that would be considered edit warring, which violates Wikipedia policy. I have only reverted your edit once and I have therefore not edit warred and I have also referred you to the talk page. Many Thanks Owl In The House (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Philip, I created the article on the above individual posted yesterday, which you have modified today. You seem to have made quit a number of changes. I note the comments you have made in relation to each change. I don't think any of the changes you have made have improved the article, therefore I have reverted them all. I accept that when you first started making your changes, you may not have expected to change the article so substantially. Perhaps if you had anticipated the extend to which you were going to go, you might have sent me a message first to explain your thinking. I'm sure that you understand that I spent a lot of time and energy in creating the article in the way that I did. I have created a number of articles and like you I have also modified articles created by other users. Whenever I have modified someone elses work, this has I think always been to add detail rather than remove it. Seeing an article I have just created get significantly reduced did come as a bit of a shock to me. If you really feel strongly that any of your modifications improved the article, I will happily discuss them further. If however, you feel on reflection, that it is better to retain the original information, you would make me happy.Graemp (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- You urgently need to read WP:OWN, no editor has ownership of an article.
- If there are any other articles which list an individuals failed parliamentary election candidacies in as much detail as you have given, I have never come across them. This is entirely undue weight; election results in this detail are generally absent from the articles of very prominent politicians, let alone people who are not mainly remembered for their political activities.
- The various constituency histories viz a viz the Liberals have no place in this article, nor the detailed results. Wikipedia has entirely separate articles about constituencies and the election results in them over the years, as you will have noticed. These are easily accessed for the curious. You can expand the coverage of the Liberals and Liberal Democrats in those articles if you wish, as you obviously have an interest in this area, but including them in the article to this extent is pointless. Are users going to be much bothered about Doreen Gorsky's candidacies? I would say not. As I say in one of my edit summaries, Doreen Stephens/Gorsky did not earn her living as a politician, hence 'activist' is a more accurate description in the opening summary.
- I would also suggest moving the article to 'Doreen Stephens' as it is under this name that the media-related sources identify her, but making it clear in the politics section that she also used her (second) married name. It is for her media career that Stephens is remembered, thus making more sense to use her birth surname. Philip Cross (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello again Philip, thank you for your considered response. I shall address these points in turn. WP:OWN - I don't consider that I have ownership and don't follow why you think I need to urgently read any WP. Detail of electoral performances - I would not expect anyone without a particular interest in the subject matter to be aware of what is being done so it doesn't surprise me that you have not seen this sort of detail before. For more prominent politicians, including this extent of detail is indeed less common but because their electoral contests by definition played a less significant part in their political career. The very brief electoral history I gave was done to provide important context. The point you make about how an individual earns their living is I think irrelevant, as many politicians, even those elected to public office, have mainly earnt their living from outside of politics. How someone who was President of a party's Womens section, who sat on the party's national executive and who wrote major planks of party policy does not warrant being called a politician beats me. Clearly you have a media focus rather than a political one. I fully admit that the media section is undercooked compared with the political section and that it probably needs further work on from someone with more knowledge and inclination than me. To be honest, I don't like the media section as I think it reads badly - however, since I imported this from another wikipedia article, I did not think it was right for me to mess around with it. As regards moving the article to Doreen Stephens because you believe her media notability is more significant, that is a difficult point to argue, though frankly, I'm not that bothered. So, I will leave it up to you or anyone else to make changes to the media section and to arrange for a move if you think it important. Graemp (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
BFI Twitter quote on The Elstree Project
Hi Philip, I saw you removed the text relating to the BFI twitter quote on the article. Would you mind if we discussed this a little? I've posted on the article's talk page so the discussion can be contained on there. Thanks! Howie ☎ 20:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Georgina Henry
|On 12 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Georgina Henry, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Arianna Huffington said she thought journalist Georgina Henry was a "kindred spirit"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Georgina Henry. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
Thanks for the cleanup. Not a super big deal, but the CNN ref does have the quote. its about 1/3 down, just under the big Comcast ad. '"Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing," he said. "There is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it."' Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- My mistake, although the point about poor ratings needed a citation. Philip Cross (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- As the source in referring to Guinness does not make a distinction between types of beer, one can assume the Stout is the variety of Guinness referred to. The bitter variant is obscure in comparison. Philip Cross (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Have a read of http://www.beerhunter.com/documents/19133-000073.html Draught-style Guinness Bitter in cans predates the Boddingtons variety. This is much what the original article states. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Refs go inside parenthetical parentheses per MOS:REFPUNC. Thought I'd leave a note. 03:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
PIE and Associated Labour Politicians
Philip, thanks for your edits on the PIE article, can I ask a quick question? I want to separate Hewitt's apology from the on-going allegations against Dromey and Harman for the sake of chronology, what is the best wiki format for that? Many thanks. Twobells (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- As Harriet Harman has been the principle target of the Daily Mail, Patricia Hewitt's apology is secondary. It is a question of emphasis and weight depending on the subject of the article when an issue is relevant to several articles. Philip Cross (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 4
Re: Abby Martin
Hi. Could I ask you to look at Draft:Abby Martin and comment on the Draft talk:Abby Martin ? You're sort of working cross-purposes to what we're trying achieve at the draft. The Breaking the Set stub was created by users who couldn't edit the original Abby Martin article. We probably don't need an article on the show (and as you observe, it will probably be folded into the main RT parent article) but much of the content you are adding is about Martin and should be added to the draft article in the Breaking the Set section. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Philip. Re: Twitter, hope you didn't think me re-insertion was pointy. Reading the feed, Ensor @ The Telegraph clearly included the RT statement and added it to her published article without first fact-checking it with Martin, who subsequently asked Ensor via Twitter to update the article - but of course, I can't actually write that sequence of events into the page because it is straying into OR. In this instance, it is certainly the case that the msm were incorrect and the individual used Twitter - a RS in these circumstances - to put the facts straight. Anyway, you have a lot more input on the page than I, so I'll leave it up to you to decide whether to keep the Twitter ref or nay. Cheers. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 11:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
PIE and Peter Hain
While I'm not especially fussed, I find your reversing the edit on Peter Hain odd (particularly 'too much and unproven'), especially as Hain is at least as well known as a Young Liberal thanks to his leading demonstrations against South African sports teams and so on in the apartheid era. This is hardly a contentious slur. That he went on to become a Labour cabinet minister is far less relevant and is not necessary, as you suggest, to help confirm that this is the same Peter Hain as the link the Wikipedia article on him achieves this. Stephen Newton (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- The unproven part is a reference to your edit summary: "Hain's wiki page has him leaving Liberals for Labour in 1977. This is probably relevant in context of his later being a Labour cabinet minister." Of cause this is relevant to Peter Hain, but it "too much" when the need here is merely to demonstrate that there is no hndis issue and the article is not directly about Hain. Philip Cross (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- On that basis (i.e. 'too much'), the reference to his later being in a Labour cabinet should go as this is less relevant than his affiliation at the time. Proof of his leaving the Liberals for Labour isn't required as it is not mentioned on the article, only on the talk page and edit summary. Sorry to bang on, but the point is that Hain was not speaking as a future Labour cabinet member (nobody knew what his future held) but as whatever he was at the time. Contemporary affiliations are clearly more relevant than those later acquired. 16:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Stephen Newton (talk)
If you haven't already, you'll probably want to look through all of Frenchtoast312's contributions - it's someone from the organization. Most of their edits were similar to the ones you just removed. — Scott • talk 16:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Noting your name as a major contributor to the page before I started putting my oar in, I wonder if I can interest you in the peer review of the article? Having got Ralph Richardson to FA I am hoping to do the same for his great colleague. User:SchroCat has simultaneously been working on a comprehensive list of Gielgud's stage, screen and radio roles, and his awards, and you might perhaps be interested in the review of that page, too. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)