Talk:Laurie Penny: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:01, 3 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laurie Penny article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism C‑class Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Feminism C‑class Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Balance

As has been mentioned above, this article is very, very far from balanced. Laurie's writing, intentionally or not, courts controversy and it is only fair to showcase that criticism as well, perhaps under a 'criticism' section? I'm not talking about personal attacks, I'm talking about valid criticism. After what happened with Johann Hari, you would think that we would be able to get a handle on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janemccallion (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not recommended to create criticism sections. Notable criticism can be included in the body of the article in relation to the time or the praise it is in opposition or rebuttal to. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, it's the very fact that the way she writes does and has courted notable criticism that I think warrants this type of section. And while it may not be recommended, other polemical writers such as Richard Littlejohn and Paul Staines *do* have a 'criticism and controversy' section on their respective pages. I'm not talking about turning this page into a bitchfest, obviously, but I think that it is only fair that criticism of her work be accommodated. Janemccallion (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2011

There are many things at many articles but I prefer to focus on the correct manual of style wiki guidelines - integration of criticism to the relevant location avoids the undue listing of opinionated partisan attacks. Perhaps you can offer some noteworthy criticism here for perusal and investigation. Are you talking about the primary bloggers and private eye? What in the article now requires rebuttal and balancing by criticism? Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is lie about Starkey swearing at Penny being repeatedly re-inserted? It is - A: Not really a notable event, and B: provably untrue.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ::As I say, it's the very fact that the way she writes does and has courted notable criticism that I think warrants this type of section. And while it may not be recommended, other polemical writers such as Richard Littlejohn and Paul Staines *do* have a 'criticism and controversy' section on their respective pages. I'm not talking about turning this page into a bitchfest, obviously, but I think that it is only fair that criticism of her work be accommodated. [[User:Janemccallion|Janemccallion]] ([[User talk:Janemccallion|talk]]) 13:11, 13 November 2011
 :::There are many things at many articles but I prefer to focus on the correct manual of style wiki guidelines - integration of criticism to the relevant location avoids the undue listing of opinionated partisan attacks. Perhaps you can offer some noteworthy criticism here for perusal and investigation. Are you talking about the primary bloggers and private eye? What in the article now requires rebuttal and balancing by criticism? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
+Why is lie about Starkey swearing at Penny being repeatedly re-inserted?  It is - A: Not really a notable event, and B: provably untrue.