Talk:Roland Huntford: Difference between revisions
tagged WP Journalism class-Stub importance-NA |
adding comments on recent edits. |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Is there any harm in leaving the paragraph about Fiennes' rebuttal in? It's been there since 2006, and you have overlooked it on several occasions before deciding it should be moved. Huntford is predominantly known as a Scott critic, so the information is relevant. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/213.86.235.190|213.86.235.190]] ([[User talk:213.86.235.190|talk]]) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Is there any harm in leaving the paragraph about Fiennes' rebuttal in? It's been there since 2006, and you have overlooked it on several occasions before deciding it should be moved. Huntford is predominantly known as a Scott critic, so the information is relevant. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/213.86.235.190|213.86.235.190]] ([[User talk:213.86.235.190|talk]]) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
==Vested Interests?== |
|||
The article on Huntford was well balanced until recently. One user has carried out major edits, adding largely irrelevant pov information. Another user pops up once in a blue moon and carries out edits which totally contradict his past actions. |
|||
Huntford is predominantly famous for his attacks on Scott. It is right that this should be apparent within the article, and also right that the main reposte to him is mentioned. What some New York Times reviewer said about him whilst reviewing another book almost a decade ago is irrelevant. comment added on 7 April 2009 by [[Special:Contributions/213.86.235.190|213.86.235.190]] ([[User talk:213.86.235.190|talk]]) |
Revision as of 08:46, 7 April 2009
Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia Stub‑class | ||||||||||||||||
|
Journalism Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Whitewash
Is there anyone out there who thinks the use of the word "whitewashing" is the best possible word for this article? If not, let's change it. (/s/ Bigturtle)
No it Definitely wasn't, 'whitewashing' suggests a cover up, so I slightly altered it but kept the context of the meaning.(rogaw)
Fiennes'Rebuttal
Is there any harm in leaving the paragraph about Fiennes' rebuttal in? It's been there since 2006, and you have overlooked it on several occasions before deciding it should be moved. Huntford is predominantly known as a Scott critic, so the information is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.235.190 (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Vested Interests?
The article on Huntford was well balanced until recently. One user has carried out major edits, adding largely irrelevant pov information. Another user pops up once in a blue moon and carries out edits which totally contradict his past actions.
Huntford is predominantly famous for his attacks on Scott. It is right that this should be apparent within the article, and also right that the main reposte to him is mentioned. What some New York Times reviewer said about him whilst reviewing another book almost a decade ago is irrelevant. comment added on 7 April 2009 by 213.86.235.190 (talk)
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- Automatically assessed biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- Automatically assessed biography (science and academia) articles
- Automatically assessed biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Stub-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles