Talk:Richard Bornat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

The Sheep/Goats theory looks good to me. Who says it's controversial ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you are definitely entitled to your opinion. Are you looking to discredit the source of the information?

Just in case you think this may be an issue of hyperbole, another person in academia – with a much higher profile – was forced to resign around the same time for a similar incident. 07:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if they're rude to people they can hardly expect those people to respond with affection. Both Bornat and Summers should be old enough to know how the world works. Too bad if they haven't worked out how to get along with other people by now.

Anyway getting back to my question, who says the theory is controversial ? Wikipedia isn't supposed to. That's why we need to quote a source if we want to include that point of view. If we don't have one, and thus can't attribute it to anybody we shouldn't include it. That's basic NPOV as Larry Sanger originally phrased it. If someone says the theory is controversial, I'll happily quote them. But if nobody other than your esteemed self is of that opinion, you will need to take it elsewhere. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever. You said that the theory "looks good" to you. Either you are downright oblivious to the odiousness of such displays of ostentation, or are simply intellectually dishonest.

In any case, the source is included. If you can legally discredit the source, feel free to spin the content in question. If not, take your tripe elsewhere --User talk:Folajimi 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discrediting the source. I just wanted to see it. Thanks for providing it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)