Talk:George Orwel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I don't know if we actually need an article about this incident, but it would probably be better to have an article about the book rather than its author, since that's what the NY Times article is about (and the only reason this article exists).P4k (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Can only write the book article once I read the book ;) Will be a little while before that happens. In the meanwhile, the author and his book have wider implications and it is harmless if we leave this stub be. Who knows? Nshuks7 (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing links and citations to a user page article

I tried to find other discussion about using this or any user page as a reference, but couldn't. I can understand using a sandbox page as a waystation for writing, sourcing, etc., but this page looks too complete and article-ish for my comfort. The article needs more edits, but I'd like other editors to weigh in first.Flowanda | Talk 17:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Article-ish? And there's nothing against using a user page as reference. The written matter under dispute was discussed by the original author and I feel that it deserves to be displayed. As for the reference to the book, it is the other part of the bone of contention here, so that link should remain as well.Nshuks7 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
We need to be very careful that this remains an encyclopedia article and not a news story. Use of primary sources should be done with caution and in limited circumstances. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict edits

Sorry about undoing changes, but I'm not sure about using the obscure wording...did the nytimes pick up on what was already being talked about or on the user page info? Just want to be clear. Flowanda | Talk 20:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(About how NY Times pick up the story) Shouldn't that be insignificant? We usually do not ask whether a news item was picked up by a reporter or whether someone came to a reporter and told a story. Also, the article says that the original author says "in an email" that "I view my Wikipedia writings as a form of procrastination from real work, so I’d prefer to remain anonymous and not reveal the extent of my procrastination to colleagues." This reason should be mentioned here. The fact is that as long as the source is cited as Wikipedia, using the material is not illegal. However, NOT citing the source as Wikipedia was Orwel's main mistake. Hence I had written as much. Comments?Nshuks7 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about using the phrase "allegations surfaced" and if it meant you were noting the allegations had been circulating long before the Times article. I'm still not clear, but I don't think we're disagreeing.
And I didn't want you to think I had reverted your edits; edit conflict pages are extremely difficult (for me anyway) to see what the other changes are, and most of the time, I cancel a bunch of my edits just to see that the other edit was a bot adding a category tag.Flowanda | Talk 21:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So, add a sentence about how not crediting the article is what caused the problem (at least for Wikipedia) and cite the user page? Flowanda | Talk 21:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)