Talk:Richard A. E. North

message: This is undue, if this controversy is going to cover around half the article it does not belong, this is a BLP not an attack platform mark nutley (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reporting the facts, including North's response to the retraction, is an attack platform how? Removing the entire section completely is totally out of order, and you can hardly edit the paragraph to be any shorter without losing important clarity. Well you could squeeze it a bit by dropping the Pachauri quote completely and rewriting the NYT quote, but it's still going to be just one paragraph, slightly shorter. I have to add I spent more than an hour researching this, finding bits and pieces of his career - look at the number of sources and pieces of information. It's just a start, and to claim the entire climate change section is WP:UNDUE at this stage is utter nonsense. A retraction and apology is generally significant in any journalist's career. Rd232 talk 19:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that this "material" does seem to be well covered and notable, for what thats worth. I am so loath to get into climate topics, I believe I am free of them to date, but does this fall under that area and if so, are any "special" templates, ect needed here? TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, probably. Copying from the Chris Booker talk page. Rd232 talk 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged as NPOV mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Justify it, or take it to WP:NPOVN. Tagging is a lovely way of not having to actually make an argument - don't be that guy. Rd232 talk 09:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Already justified, it is undue simple really mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not good enough. Removing tag: if you want to pursue this, take it to WP:NPOVN. A tag is not a solution and you're not making an argument anyone can actually engage with. Rd232 talk 16:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: You are employing double standards.  Having accepted the Bruges Group bio as a source for much of your background detail, you then reject the references in the same Bruges Group bio to Dr Richard North.  For the record, North was awarded a PhD in July 1995 by Leeds Metropolitan University. The title of the thesis is listed as: "The quality of public sector food poisoning surveillance in England and Wales with specific reference to salmonella food poisoning".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.8.240 (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, well you seem to know a lot about it... Anyway, that helped find a source to add a mention to the background section, where it belongs. Rd232 talk 14:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of content 

message: Whilst North certainly is a blogger, and he's best known as that, I'm not sure (having spent a lot of time expanding the background) that it's really the best disambiguation. And he's written or co-written a number of books too. So maybe Richard A. E. North? Rd232 talk 09:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... there are certainly people claiming to care about this article, but in 2 weeks nobody has bothered to comment on this. I'll just go ahead and move it. Rd232 talk 08:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: An IP claiming to be the subject has been removing content. I am neither bound to the article nor the content but believe referenced material shouldn't be removed without discussion on the talk page. Ifnord (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject removing content