Talk:Denis Dutton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	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]

[edit] Legal Woes

The section on his legal woes uses inflammatory language. This should either be contextualised (what was the outcome?) or else removed forthwith. Eusebeus 11:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The referenced outcome of the case is already included in the entry. Hay4 11:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there was some kind of out of court settlement. As it is, I still think the language is inappropriate. It is POV pushing, even if the POV is ostensibly coming from a WP:V third party. The paragraphs should detail the substance of the dispute, not the inflammatory language used to characterise the defendants. Eusebeus 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian

Mr Dutton once mentioned that he is a Libertarian, I was about to add it to the first line of this page but I'm not 100% sure I should. Any thoughts? Kansaikiwi 06:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

He is a libertarian. Babajobu 22:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, please

I absolutely agree with Eusebeus, the article has become tainted by POV evaluations (describing a contest that ran for four years as "short-lived"; how does one determine the normative length of a contest of that sort? And how do you determine that being a co-defendant in a single lawsuit five years ago constitute "legal woes" for Dutton). Sources are also used very sloppily. For example, the plaintiff's law firm claims on its website that the case was "brought to a favorable result"; the article not only credits the claims of that side's lawyer as factual, but actually takes them further by saying that "the result was unfavorable to Dutton," when the law firm itself hasn't even claimed that. Even if the plaintiff was content with the outcome, Dutton himself may have been delighted by it, or content with it, or miserable about it. We can't know without reference to further sources.

But all this is really beside the point; I notice that the contributor who added this info had also reproduced in this article claims that Dutton is a "conman", "vicious", and other slurs. Sir, please note that this is a biographical article of a living person, and that potentially defamatory material is subject to high standards of verifiability and notability, as per Jimbo's fiat. And as it stands now, the "Legal Woes" section is based on a single article on a website that doesn't meet Wikipedia's basic requirements for WP:reliable sources. Nor does the existence of one article in a very minor source do much to prove that this information is notable. For those reasons, I'm removing that section until someone can cite better sources or make a better case for notability. Babajobu 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You make good points and I admit that I hadn't put much thought or work into my contributions. That being said, I think that because Dutton decided to promote himself by starting an academic journal, starting and running an academic website, starting a "bad writing contest," and working in radio, he became a public figure. How do you feel about this? Hay4 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)