Guy Chapman writes:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:11:05 +0000, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Guy Chapman accepts inclusion in the text, but objects to the link on grounds of WP:EL and WP:BLP.
No, I think that inclusion of the Times-sourced reference does not violate [[WP:BLP]], but I consider that the entire thing violates [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight]].
It's interesting that you should choose this moment to announce your conversion to this view, which you had previously mentioned as merely a fallback position. For what it's worth, the first time an edit war broke out over the Tim Ireland issue, it did dominate the article: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Milton&oldid=60181758 for one example of an old revision, most of which is taken over either by reporting the blog or its contents. This did cause problems with undue weight, until on June 30th one very helpful editor came in and researched a much longer article. Modesty forbids me from saying who exactly this much maligned editor was.
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:48:08 +0000, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
No, I think that inclusion of the Times-sourced reference does not violate [[WP:BLP]], but I consider that the entire thing violates [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight]].
It's interesting that you should choose this moment to announce your conversion to this view, which you had previously mentioned as merely a fallback position. For what it's worth, the first time an edit war broke out over the Tim Ireland issue, it did dominate the article: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Milton&oldid=60181758 for one example of an old revision, most of which is taken over either by reporting the blog or its contents. This did cause problems with undue weight, until on June 30th one very helpful editor came in and researched a much longer article. Modesty forbids me from saying who exactly this much maligned editor was.
David, it is not "interesting" that I should "choose this moment", since you just started a new thread to which I replied. Therefore it is no more "interesting" than that you chose "this moment" to try once again to get your own way.
Nor is it any kind of sudden conversion. I looked at the content initially as a [[WP:LIVING]] issue and a revert war on a biography, once that problem was solved through the involved parties settling down to talk instead of edit-war, I looked at it in terms of the merit of inclusion overall. "Blogger hates MP, pictures at eleven" does not seem to me to be much of a claim, and the fact that media coverage appears not to extend beyond local colour during the election itself rather reinforces that view. I don't think I'm the only one with that view.
And I still don't like linking attack blogs from biographies. I think it is asking for trouble.
Guy (JzG)