Talk:Robert Steadman/redraft

I see no point in the alterations from the current page that is on Wikipedia. This is an attempt to remove info which Crusading composer has been tryiong to do all along. He has no knowledge of the subject beyond this site, Steadman's site, a google search and an internet discussion forum. He is not a musician. I suggest maintaining the page as it is currently on Wikipedia - it is balanced, reads fairly well (yes a feww minor alteration wouldn;t go amiss) and gives a good overview, as I understand it, of Robert Steadman.

Vhjh 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You REALLY don't get it, do you. I'm not disputing the musical content, merely some of the unverified and sourceless references to the subject's political beliefs. I believe that having read his comments for a good few years, I feel qualified to comment on THESE. 23:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Crusading composer 23:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New user question - There are a lot of non functioning links. How does this work? When we are editing a page do we create the links first and then hope that someone builds a page? Or should we check that a link actually links to something before we make it a link? (This isn't a sinister question, just curious - no interest in removing the 'links' - I only found out how to make links recently).Crusading composer 23:20, 2 November 2005

(UTC)

So the verifiable "political' things via pieces of music are ok? I agree. It is unverifiable ones and messageboard postings (which cannot be described as "campaigning") that I have an issue with, as you well know. You make some strong claims against Mr. Steadman which I believe are unverifiable due to the nature of an internet mesageboard - have you any record beyond one website of his views? What if he's been playing devil's advocate? What if you've overstated his views in order to give a negative slant? What does happen if an article actually libels someone? (Not a sinister threat, a genuine request for information). Vhjh 07:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that his campaigning and politics warrants more than a passing comment. He is not famous for his camapigning. If you want to make an issue of Mr steadman's politics, then you have to be prepared to include ALL his political campaigning. He spends several hours EVERY day posting on the TES, so it's not THAT difficult to get an idea of his beliefs and he seems to spend more time postting than composing so I'd say that it is an important part of his life. As far as the libel threat is concerned, individual editors would have to ensure that they placed links to articles in nwhich Mr Steadman had expressed his various poltical beliefs.Crusading composer 12:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DIscussions and opinions placed on an online messageboard are NOT political campaigns - they are discussions, arguements. If Steadman has written articles on these subjects, even letters to the press perhaps, that could be seen as campaigning but a post on a messageboard is not, in my opinion. Compositions published with a political intention, however, are clearly political statements and are verifiable as such. 213.249.155.239 12:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

are we meant to be adjusting the suggested draft? i see no benefit to the abridged version. i see no problem with the version currently be used. 86.137.227.147 19:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two Robert Steadman pages? Kleinzach 23:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]