Talk:Tony Hall, Baron Hall of Birkenhead

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

Highest paid charity CEO[edit]

Surely the Wellcome Trust CEO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Impartial to Islamic State (IS)[edit]

Mr Hall favours impartiality in broadcasting about IS. He continues to defy the PM and many MPs (including Muslims one) because ....... he knows best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:45, 2 July 2015‎

This page is for suggesting changes to the article, supported by reliable sources - not to add unsourced personal commentary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The above should be in article. I have added it in. Here's a link re proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be in this article, which is about Hall personally, though it's mentioned at BBC controversies. In any case, your edit was inaccurate - Hall is not a Labour peer, and there's no evidence that anyone is "infuriated" - and cited no references. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ghmyrtle - I read that Hall was ex-member of the Labour Party. Nevertheless without evidence, I have amended edit from previous two users. However numerous news stories support ISIS/ISIL controversy. This I deem with the other 2 users to be important to mention. If you disagree perhaps you should get others to add their contributions. It appears unfair that you persist that your view takes precedent over 3 other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hall is reported in the press all the time, for all sorts of comments about the BBC. This is one of them. We don't mention them all. Apart from the fact that you are misrepresenting what the letter actually said, and reaction to it - he has not "defied the British Prime Minister and many MPs", he has disagreed with them; and he does not "insist... that the BBC remain impartial when reporting about Daesh" - the issue is not sufficiently important to his personal biography to be mentioned in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely should be mentioned - highly controversial in light of 38 people massacred in Tunisia. Helenaknowitall — Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure - and don't care - whether you're all the same person, or several people with a common agenda. It's unsourced, untrue, inappropriate to this article, and will be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ghmyrtle - please explain why you have just deleted my changes to previous editors' versions. You cite that Daily Mail cannot be trusted yet I also cited the Independent. If you are claiming that newspapers cannot be relied upon as trusted sources then how come the Daily Telegraph is used as in connection with "Death Threats" topic. If anything ISIS issue in my opinion is much bigger and serious than the odd Top Gear fan getting worked up and making insubstantial threats. Certainly if the threats came from an organisation or group who had a history and reputation then yes it would be newsworthy. However as I do not suffer from megalomania, I do not delete whole topics by virtue of my decision alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyreid (talkcontribs) 23:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. The Independent is. That decision has been taken by many editors through discussion over the years - not me. And, the fact that a reliable source publishes something does not necessarily mean that we should republish it - we are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. If it is of encyclopedic value, we need to consider which article or articles it is best mentioned in. As I said before, the controversy over IS/Daesh naming is not appropriate for this article - but it is (or was, last time I looked) mentioned in the article on BBC controversies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)