Talk:Thomas W. Davis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas W. Davis article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

[edit] Worthy?

Is Tom Davis actually an important or credible enough person to have an article about him? Only thing that makes him interesting is his fight with Sweeney, I recommend this article be merged with the Panorama Scientology and Me article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.115.177 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since he's the head of Celebrity Center International, a unit of Scientology's international organization, I'd say he's important enough. WillOakland (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

I have brought up my concerns at WP:BLPN. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP/N response:I removed the Village Voice blog comment as it is not a reliable source and a BLP issue. The rest is cited to newspaper, so are from RS; they should be reviewed for WP:UNDUE. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make that call. --Faith (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This information should be restored. Tony Ortega is not simply a blogger - he is the Editor-in-chief of The Village Voice:

Press Release, Village Voice Media (March 5, 2007). Tony Ortega Named Village Voice Editor-in-Chief. The Village Voice.

The Editor-in-chief of The Village Voice may be considered WP:RS in commenting about his specific area of expertise, the news and individuals representing information and discussing it on CNN. The source is also WP:V. If Justallofthem (talk · contribs) considers him biased, then per Wikipedia site standards he is welcome to bring forth other reliable, third party sources who take a different view, in order to present the range of expert opinion on the matter. That way, Wikipedia's readers can make up their own minds. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make any difference if he is the editor, this ref is a blog, his opinion, not represented as "news" or RS. It violates WP:BLP. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP/N response:The Village Voice is a tabloid, not a newspaper, from what I can see, and the material came from a tabloid blog. As such, it's my opinion that it's no more than gossip and needs to remain out of the article. I'm not an interested party to either side, but IMO that's not a RS and it's a BLPvio (WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid"). The rest you'll have to come to consensus on, as it's all cited to respectable newspapers, as far as I could see. --Faith (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to FaithF: - Respectfully, there is zero source provided, so far as I can see, to show that The Village Voice is anything other than a respectable newspaper. Unless you can provide a third-party source for your assessment of "tabloid" ? And as for Tony Ortega, he is a Livingston Award and Eugene S. Pulliam Award finalist, and is a recipient of the Virg Hill Arizona Journalist of the Year Award, the Los Angeles Press Club Award for best news story, the 2002 Unity Award and the 2005 Association of Alternative Newsweeklies award for best column. This source is most certainly WP:RS. Respectfully request that you please reconsider your assessment of The Village Voice and Village Voice Media. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, just read the very WP article you link to for a discussion of the tabloid nature of the Voice. ps, if you make identical posts in two places it makes extra work to carry on a coherent discussion. Respectfully suggest you strike one or the other of the identical comments. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is ongoing at WP:BLPN, and I thought it best that individuals that peruse that forum should be made aware of the situation. And yes, I did check the Wikipedia article on "The Village Voice", and I found it to be inaccurate and virtually wholly unsourced, so no, I do not trust that article as the best source for a characterization on the respectability of this award-winning Newspaper. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Re the double-posting, respecfully suggest that a simple "please see discussion at . . . " is a better solution. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see thread at WP:BLPN. In short, The Village Voice is a highly respected media publication and has been honored with numerous awards, including multiple Pulitzer Prize awards and the George Polk Award. The writings of the Editor in chief of such a highly-respected and award-winning publication are most certainly WP:RS and WP:V and are appropriate for Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, tabloid is a simple description of the printing format, not the quality of newspaper. (Toronto's dailies are split between broadsheet and tabloid formats.) Trying to label The Village Voice with the pejorative sense of tabloid doesn't make it non-RS. AndroidCat (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is going on in two places but be that as it may. The issue is that this is simply a blog entry by a critic of Scientology, be he the editor or no, and as it a derogatory characterization of Davis the more stringent sourcing rules of WP:BLP apply. It is one thing to report what Davis himself said, it is another to report a lone derogatory opinion by a critic. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

By this edit, User:FaithF accepts Tony Ortega and Village Voice as a Reliable Source (by maintaining citation #8.) User:FaithF rejected citation #20 by the same author in the same publication on the basis that it was in the form of a blog rather than a news story. WP policy does not outright ban the use of blogs as RS. Mainstream news blogging is becoming a more acceptable form of news presentation, as witnessed by the award-winning blogs by staff journalists at the Sydney Morning Herald. --David from Downunder (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I did nothing of the sort. I said it is my opinion that the source is unreliable, and the other sources, if cited to respectable newspapers, are acceptable for that reason. Don't attempt to put words into my mouth by pointing to one I missed. Blogs are not acceptable when they come from gossip rags; SMH is not a gossip rag, while the VV appears to be one. This is my last comment here as I've given my opinion on the matter now and do not intend to take part in this bickering. --Faith (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OOoooohhhh.. try ASSUME GOOD FAITH. I apologise most sincerely for not recognising YOUR MISTAKE then. --David from Downunder (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Practice what you preach, then, David. You falsely attributed something to me without asking if that was my intent. Try assuming good faith that I meant what I said, and that it was a missed citation. --Faith (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
David, instead of trying to parse FaithF's edits and make your own interpretation of them why not simply pay attention to what she has already said on the subject. I have asked you to self revert as you have three reverts of this material in the past 24 hours and this article is under probation and even one revert may draw attention. So please self-revert and we can take it from there. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with David from Downunder (talk · contribs), and a few of the awards that The Village Voice has received are briefly mentioned here - and more are mentioned here - Editorial Awards. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you please provide a third-party source stating that this particular use of "tabloid" refers to the quality of journalism presented? Even so, the word "tabloid" is simply a word, and in the face of the numerous prestigious journalism awards received by this media institution over the decades that it has been around, it can most certainly be considered a WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Michael Musto, gossip columnist and critic for the Village Voice, Gossip: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/archives/2008/05/schindlers_dis.php. --Faith (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
An interesting piece, and yet I do not see how that pertains to this discussion. Perhaps if we were talking specifically about gossip columns and Michael Musto, but no, we are talking about The Village Voice as a whole and its Editor in chief. MSNBC publishes a gossip column, CNN has gossip segments, does that invalidate those media publications in entirety? Cirt (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid just refers to the size of the newspaper ("compact"). The pejorative connotations come from the fact that many papers with a tabloid form are gossip newspapers. The Village Voice is clearly not just a gossip paper, having won 3 Pulitzers. Faith should stop arguing in that vein because it is a dead end. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Topic covered extensively on BLPN; an editor just decided to talk about it in both places, confusing the matter. --Faith (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)