Talk:David Gilmour (writer)

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Ann Burlingham in topic No controversy cited in controversy section

No controversy cited in controversy section edit

I agree that the RH interview was notable, but there is no controversy or criticism of his remarks cited in that section, which makes it unfair to call it a "controversy" unless the only goal was to shame him because the WP editor found his remarks despicable. That is not the purpose of WP, this is not the comment section of the RH post or a social media network (the only places where I saw this controversy), so we would need some actual published critics lambasting him for the remarks or some censure from his school etc. to keep that label or even the section. JesseRafe (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've removed this section for this reason. Claiming there was a 'controversy' without any sources (even the source for the interview was a dead link) is a violation of WP:BLP. Robofish (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Not sure if a blog can count as a source but I've seen this pop up in my FB newsfeed a few times over the last couple of days - http://bellejarblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/an-open-letter-to-david-gilmour/ TheTyrant (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)TheTyrantReply
Or perhaps this will work better - http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/holger-syme/holger-syme-david-gilmour_b_3996818.html TheTyrant (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)TheTyrantReply

so this is left without something he's notable for? the transcript of the interview is online, and there are many mentions of the interview and his sexism out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Burlingham (talkcontribs) 17:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC) perhaps link back to Keller's page, where he is linked, as are articles.Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Gilmour (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply