Talk:George Eaton (journalist)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Eaton (journalist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Scruton controversy
[edit]--2A02:8084:609E:4800:9DEA:1D0F:5F11:3086 (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC) I removed the newly added section on the Scruton controversy, instead adding the content to the career section. The subject's Wikipedia page is not substantial enough, nor is the controversy significant enough, to justify a stand-alone section. The content of the section required much condensing and improvement in the language. All related references required fixing.
I never added this section, but having read it found it both inaccurate and misleading, not to say defamatory of Sir Roger Scruton. That is, in fact, the whole source of the controversy. I was attempting to correct it when somebody came along and interfered in media res. They have now made a mess of what I attempted to correct. This is sheer vandalism on their part. Vancouveriensis (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Should there not be a separate section? The section that there is now doesn't emphasise enough that Eaton was shown to be a liar, and almost certainly did it for political reasons. Rustygecko (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Homosexuality
[edit]I found it interesting that Eaton declared Scruton not only as a rightwinger and racist, but in particular a "homophobe". This is not an aspect of Sir Roger one would normally emphasize if one does not feel personally affected. So I think the question is justified if Eaton felt he had to avenge himself and his "kin". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rheinvolk (talk • contribs) 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a question for Wikipedia actually. You're just speculating, which is not what Wikipedia is for. I've noticed you've got a bit of a tendency to add speculative comments like this to Talk pages in Wikipedia. You might like to consider the policy Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Seaweed (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia requested images of journalists
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- Start-Class Media articles
- Unknown-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles