Talk:David Wallechinsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Parade list

Unless there's a secondary source specifically discussing the absence of Mubarak from Wallechinsky's list of worst dictators, there's absolutely no reason to make any mention of Mubarak in this article. It is not Wikipedia's place to analyse who is or is not on Wallechinsky's list. If some other source analyses the list, we can and should report on that here, but unless that analysis comes from someone else, we should not be doing the original research of criticising the selections. -- Jonel | Speak 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The removed text is not criticizing the selection. It is providing further information to the reader. What the reader makes of it is the reader's choice. The issue is relevance. If you believe that the material about Mubarak is not relevant to the list, please say so. NN 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The "further information" is clearly slanted to provide the implication that Mubarak should have been on the list. As for relevance, it doesn't really matter what you or I believe about the relevance of Mubarak to Wallechinsky's list—it matters what the sources say. As far as I can tell, there are no published sources that indicate such relevance. -- Jonel | Speak 20:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that it is "slanted" you can add further information to correct the "slant". As for relevance, I do not believe that it is a Wiki requirement to have a source explicitly say that some material is relevant to some topic. If that was the policy I would hazard that much of the material in Wiki would disappear. NN 03:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)