Talk:Theo Paphitis/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can we link to @theopaphitis on Twitter? The account holds 172 000 followers as of today, but is not a verified twitter account. 83.219.196.48 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Controversial comments
User Notpietru is keen to remove the controversial (i.e. sexist) comment made by Mr Paphitis. The original section was entitled 'Controversial comments' and featured a quote from a Guardian newspaper article. Notpietru did the following:
- added that the article was written by Kira Cochrane;
- described Kira Cochrane as a 'hack journalist' - a personal opinion, not backed-up, and unlikely since the Guardian is a well-respected paper;
- moved the content of 'Controversial comments' section into 'personal life' section;
- deleted the quote altogether.
After I replaced the quote, Notpietru said that it was 'undue weight' as the journalist is not 'notable'. My argument is that the Guardian is a respectable news source, and that this section gives balance to a page that is glowing about its subject in all other respects. Notpietru challenged me to come to the talk page, well here I am. Templetongore (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not controversial so much as irrelevant - the Guardian is notable, but by what criteria it is "respectable" I have no idea. The edit put forward maintains the relevance of the quote without dedicating an entire section to a throw-away comment, about which there is no follow up material, and which stands as a testament to agenda pushing conceptualization across Wikipedia, especially in something as pertinent as a bio article. It's inclusion is pathetic.
- Also; it appears the above user is known for personal attacks and general far-left/extremist views. Decisions to endorse agenda driven edits should be taken warily. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles should have balance, and a bio article with nothing negative in it is hardly balanced - even the Gandhi page has a section of criticisms (comments about Jews etc). If no one agrees with me, then fine, but it would be nice to have another opinion. And talking of personal attacks, describing my inclusion as 'pathetic' is something I take personally. Templetongore (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please, someone, anyone, back me up here. This page is a glowing advertisement for a man whose only accomplishment is making money for himself (in my eyes, not a worthy achievement). Should we not add some balance?Templetongore (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- The comment was clearly removed because it was "sexist". Being sexist is utterly irrelevant here as it's a quote. We don't cover up the truth just because it lends credence to political views that certain people oppose. I'm guessing User:Notpietru is a feminist with an agenda to push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.165.125 (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please, someone, anyone, back me up here. This page is a glowing advertisement for a man whose only accomplishment is making money for himself (in my eyes, not a worthy achievement). Should we not add some balance?Templetongore (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles should have balance, and a bio article with nothing negative in it is hardly balanced - even the Gandhi page has a section of criticisms (comments about Jews etc). If no one agrees with me, then fine, but it would be nice to have another opinion. And talking of personal attacks, describing my inclusion as 'pathetic' is something I take personally. Templetongore (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also; it appears the above user is known for personal attacks and general far-left/extremist views. Decisions to endorse agenda driven edits should be taken warily. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)