Guy Chapman writes:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:38:27 +0000, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I should like to clarify the issue in this dispute. The question is not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or not to mention it in the article
Er, no. The issue is whether to *link* it in the article. That is rather different.
No, not just that. I understand your position to be that the blog is worthy of mention in the text but not worthy of a link. However, there are other actors in this drama, who are the people who wish to have all mention removed. They are the people I was reverting when you blocked me for 3RR.
PS: If you look back to my edit to [[Anne Milton]] on 5 October, and compare it with how the article stood immediately before Twobells' contribution, where does that leave your still unproven theory that the reason I want the blog mentioned is that I have a political animus against Anne Milton? The relevant diff is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Milton&diff=79621472&...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:14:32 +0000, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
I should like to clarify the issue in this dispute. The question is not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or not to mention it in the article
Er, no. The issue is whether to *link* it in the article. That is rather different.
No, not just that. I understand your position to be that the blog is worthy of mention in the text but not worthy of a link. However, there are other actors in this drama, who are the people who wish to have all mention removed. They are the people I was reverting when you blocked me for 3RR.
Actually my position is that we should not link to attack blogs. If a criticism is noted externally it may be relevant for inclusion, but since coverage of this in the linked source is a single para in a local colour story, it's certainly not unambiguously relevant for inclusion.
Mention of Tim Ireland does not automatically mean we should link his attack blog.
You will note that the parties who want the whole thing removed appear to be in abeyance.
It is not necessarily the case that the correct result lies at the midpoint between include both and remove all, which is where it currently stands, but it would not be a big surprise to find it was so.
Guy (JzG)