Talk:Stow-on-the-Wold
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Trivia
I've reinstated the trivia section which was deleted by 86.139.100.200 with no edit summary. I know it's not flattering to Stow, but it happened. Flup 12:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- The AA Gill reference may as you say not be flattering but what you forget to say is that it is just one journalist's misguided opinion - it may have happened but lots of things happen and they don't all end up on wikipedia so why does this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.107.188 (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- 'Misguided' would be a point of view and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia. The comment was made by a well-known journalist and received considerable publicity. I believe it is notable, and the text of the trivia section has a neutral point of view. If you believe that there is a reason for its removal based on Wikipedia guidelines, then please say so. Flup 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, Gill's assesment of Stow is point of view the Trivia section uses a neutral POV but the relevance of Gill's assesment of the town is not relevant to the town itself - it would be relevant in Gill's entry on wikipedia. This hasn't been a widely held view amongst journalists and therefore could be said to be the opinion of a small minority of people. Therefore it is not relevant for wikipedia (86.143.76.197 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC))
-
-
-
-
- A good point. I don't have enough experience with Wikipedia to comment, so I've opened a case with the informal Mediation Cabal and asked them to give us the benefit of their wider experience (Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-01_Stow-on-the-Wold). Flup 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
The mediators advised me that WP:3O is a better solution, so I've listed the dispute there. Flup 09:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Third opinion
I read the trivia section, then followed the link to the A A Gill article and thought about it awhile. It seems to me that it's actually amusing: first one sees the rather unlikely trivia item, then if one follows up one finds that the remark was very probably not at all true, merely an unpleasant reflection of the journalist's own personality.
The entry will benefit from a very small edit characterising Gill, as indeed his article does, along the lines of "the famously abrasive journalist A A Gill" or something of that sort, to make the nature of the source of the obloquy clear at the outset. — Athænara ✉ 11:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like this solution a lot. I won't make the change until the other user has has a chance to put their opinion, though. Thanks! Flup 11:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
