| Revision as of 04:03, 1 June 2008 editJustallofthem (talk | contribs)1,455 edits →BLP: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:23, 1 June 2008 edit undoCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →BLP: cNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| :::The discussion is ongoing at ], and I thought it best that individuals that peruse that forum should be made aware of the situation. And yes, I did check the Misplaced Pages article on "The Village Voice", and I found it to be inaccurate and virtually wholly unsourced, so no, I do not trust that article as the best source for a characterization on the respectability of this award-winning Newspaper. ] (]) 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | :::The discussion is ongoing at ], and I thought it best that individuals that peruse that forum should be made aware of the situation. And yes, I did check the Misplaced Pages article on "The Village Voice", and I found it to be inaccurate and virtually wholly unsourced, so no, I do not trust that article as the best source for a characterization on the respectability of this award-winning Newspaper. ] (]) 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Re the double-posting, respecfully suggest that a simple "please see discussion at . . . " is a better solution. --] (]) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | ::::Re the double-posting, respecfully suggest that a simple "please see discussion at . . . " is a better solution. --] (]) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Please see thread at ]. In short, '']'' is a highly respected media publication and has been honored with numerous awards, including multiple ''']''' awards and the ''']'''. The writings of the ] of such a highly-respected and award-winning publication are most certainly ] and ] and are appropriate for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:23, 1 June 2008
 |
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tommy Davis (Scientology) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
Worthy?
Is Tom Davis actually an important or credible enough person to have an article about him? Only thing that makes him interesting is his fight with Sweeney, I recommend this article be merged with the Panorama Scientology and Me article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.115.177 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since he's the head of Celebrity Center International, a unit of Scientology's international organization, I'd say he's important enough. WillOakland (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
BLP
I have brought up my concerns at WP:BLPN. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
BLP/N response:I removed the Village Voice blog comment as it is not a reliable source and a BLP issue. The rest is cited to newspaper, so are from RS; they should be reviewed for WP:UNDUE. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make that call. --Faith (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This information should be restored. Tony Ortega is not simply a blogger - he is the Editor-in-chief of The Village Voice:
- Press Release, Village Voice Media (March 5, 2007). "Tony Ortega Named Village Voice Editor-in-Chief". The Village Voice.
{{cite web}}: Check|first=value (help); Check date values in:|date=(help)
The Editor-in-chief of The Village Voice may be considered WP:RS in commenting about his specific area of expertise, the news and individuals representing information and discussing it on CNN. The source is also WP:V. If Justallofthem (talk · contribs) considers him biased, then per Misplaced Pages site standards he is welcome to bring forth other reliable, third party sources who take a different view, in order to present the range of expert opinion on the matter. That way, Misplaced Pages's readers can make up their own minds. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't make any difference if he is the editor, this ref is a blog, his opinion, not represented as "news" or RS. It violates WP:BLP. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
BLP/N response:The Village Voice is a tabloid, not a newspaper, from what I can see, and the material came from a tabloid blog. As such, it's my opinion that it's no more than gossip and needs to remain out of the article. I'm not an interested party to either side, but IMO that's not a RS and it's a BLPvio (WP:BLP: "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid"). The rest you'll have to come to consensus on, as it's all cited to respectable newspapers, as far as I could see. --Faith (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply to FaithF: - Respectfully, there is zero source provided, so far as I can see, to show that The Village Voice is anything other than a respectable newspaper. Unless you can provide a third-party source for your assessment of "tabloid" ? And as for Tony Ortega, he is a Livingston Award and Eugene S. Pulliam Award finalist, and is a recipient of the Virg Hill Arizona Journalist of the Year Award, the Los Angeles Press Club Award for best news story, the 2002 Unity Award and the 2005 Association of Alternative Newsweeklies award for best column. This source is most certainly WP:RS. Respectfully request that you please reconsider your assessment of The Village Voice and Village Voice Media. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cirt, just read the very WP article you link to for a discussion of the tabloid nature of the Voice. ps, if you make identical posts in two places it makes extra work to carry on a coherent discussion. Respectfully suggest you strike one or the other of the identical comments. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion is ongoing at WP:BLPN, and I thought it best that individuals that peruse that forum should be made aware of the situation. And yes, I did check the Misplaced Pages article on "The Village Voice", and I found it to be inaccurate and virtually wholly unsourced, so no, I do not trust that article as the best source for a characterization on the respectability of this award-winning Newspaper. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Re the double-posting, respecfully suggest that a simple "please see discussion at . . . " is a better solution. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion is ongoing at WP:BLPN, and I thought it best that individuals that peruse that forum should be made aware of the situation. And yes, I did check the Misplaced Pages article on "The Village Voice", and I found it to be inaccurate and virtually wholly unsourced, so no, I do not trust that article as the best source for a characterization on the respectability of this award-winning Newspaper. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cirt, just read the very WP article you link to for a discussion of the tabloid nature of the Voice. ps, if you make identical posts in two places it makes extra work to carry on a coherent discussion. Respectfully suggest you strike one or the other of the identical comments. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see thread at WP:BLPN. In short, The Village Voice is a highly respected media publication and has been honored with numerous awards, including multiple Pulitzer Prize awards and the George Polk Award. The writings of the Editor in chief of such a highly-respected and award-winning publication are most certainly WP:RS and WP:V and are appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Categories: