Talk:Matthew Gould

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Restoration of material deleted by Ebetsey and redeleted by Soosim[edit]

I have restored material which was deleted by editors whose motivation, I'm sorry to say, seems to be to remove anything negative and retain only a one-sided view of the subject. For example, the whole point of the episode of the apology to Livni is that an apology for arrest of people who committed crimes cannot have been authorised by the government, and although it may have been meant light-heartedly, it has sparked criticism of Gould as giving the appearance of bias towards Israel and against the UK and thus has been used by those who oppose his appointment. The passage was not written in an uneven way, and to delete all mention of why Livni's parents were arrested undermines the entire purpose of the passage. I restored the neutral title 'Controversies' which had been replaced by the one-sided title 'Public Attacks' because there has been controversy about Gould, some people opposing and some supporting things he has done. This should be reported in an even-handed manner. It's not appropriate to describe only negative or only positive aspects of the subject.

The initial edits by Ebetsey added substantial amounts of text (which has almost all been retained), and also deleted substantial passages, but his/her edit summary only mentioned adding passages and gave no explanation of why others had been deleted. If someone really has a problem with this information being available, perhaps they could give a rationale.88.167.23.116 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

hi 88 - i will try to answer each point as best i can:

a) all negative items were retained, just rewritten using RS and appropriate language b) the livni apology: the rewritten version was more in line with the actual text in the RS and not just a lot of outside info thrown in. this is an online encyclopedia - people can click on the link to learn more - that is the entire point of the wikified terms. no need to re-explain it here as well. c) i could live with controversies versus public attacks. i doubt that either is really POV. d) other than what you just discussed - what else is missing that is problematic. i see ebetsey is not very active, but this seemed very good. we don't need him/her to move forward. Soosim (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

oh, and let me add that this article is probably now under the following sanctions which include only 1RR per 24 hours. so, be careful.

This is ridiculous article[edit]

It deals way too much with matters that are not of any importance. I'm 100% sure that it was written by Matthew Gould himself, or by someone who wrote on his behalf. It's more of a commercial and a disgrace to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.120.205 (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE weight to "Controversies"[edit]

Per multiple policies and guidelines, WP:STRUCTURE, Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:BLP#Due_weight, "Controversy" sections are almost inevitibly bad for encyclopedic writing and coverage of living people. The events need to integrated into chronological history or otherwise appropriately covered without being given undue weight by being called out in stand alone sections.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ok, red - go for it. it shouldn't be too hard since there are only a few items there, right? Soosim (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed the last 'controversy', describing a conversation he had with Tzipi Livni, because it wasn't clear what was 'controversial' about it - the given source didn't contain any criticism. I've left the rest for now, as they are backed by reliable sources, but I agree this article does look a bit imbalanced towards criticism at the moment. Robofish (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
relevant content now integrated, tag removed-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matthew Gould. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)