User talk:Hugh H Hunter

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --- Barek (talk) - 19:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. --- Barek (talk) - 19:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your query

Orlando, Florida is a fairly significant city. I should think that very large numbers of people have at one time or another written about it. We do not have a list of everyone who has ever done so. We would mention that a particular person had written about Orlando only if the fact of that person's having written about Orlando was in itself particularly notable. The fact that Julius Caesar wrote about the Gallic Wars is notable because his book on the subject is itself famous and has received a large amount of commentary and coverage by other writers. The little known fact that Joe Smith wrote a book about it that few people have heard of is not notable, even if his book was very good. If the fact that Hugh Hunter has written about Orlando has received significant coverage by third parties then that fact is notable, and we can consider whether or not its notability is sufficiently relevant enough for inclusion in the article. If not, then, out of the millions of facts related to Orlando that one could come up with, why single out that one for mention? Even if the fact that Hunter wrote about Orlando has received enough attention to justify inclusion in an encylopaedia article about the city, is the name of the publisher similarly notable? If not then why include it, if not to promote the book? Moving on from Orlando, Florida we have articles such as Krishna Maharaj. Here the topic of the article is not even the main subject of the book. Consequently to justify mention of that book is even more questionable. If every Wikipedia article had a paragraph mentioning every single book, film, radio or television programme, etc mentioning the subject of the article, then many articles would be totally unreadable.

The first example of adding such information to an article suggests a lack of objective perspective on what aspects of a subject are notable enough for inclusion. The three subsequent examples, where the subject of the book is not even the subject of the article, strongly suggest that the principal purpose is to draw attention to the book. It looks to me as though the principal purpose was promotion, but even if it wasn't, the information was out of place in the articles for the reasons I have outlined. If you sincerely cannot see that, then I suggest that you are so closely involved with what you are writing about that you are unable to stand back and see how the issue would look from the point of view of an objective, uninvolved observer. This inability to see an objective perspective is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest strongly discourages writing on a subject in which you have a personal involvement. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]