Talk:Carole Cadwalladr

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carole Cadwalladr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022072745/http://www.metacritic.com:80/books/authors/cadwalladrcarole/familytree to http://www.metacritic.com/books/authors/cadwalladrcarole/familytree
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't have the time myself, but can't help but think to make this article more balanced someone should research/catalogue all the nonsense this so-called journalist has published and posted on social media and had to retract because it was made up.
Blondielightning (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that would constitute WP:OR, which isn't acceptable in WP. You would need to find a WP:RS which identifies examples of fabrication. I agree with your underlying point though - the article is presently overly reverential given that CC is a controversial journalist who has received considerable criticism from some quarters. We do have to be careful with WP:BLP articles though. --Ef80 (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retractions 

message: May I suggest that due the amount of trolling of this page, that this page is protected. 159753 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: – This is not the place to request protection of pages. Please post a request on this page: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Just done that. I was a little confused on how to do it. 159753 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already semi-protected. Edits by anonymous and newly-registered contributors do not appear, which takes care of most attempts at disruptive editing. Any trolling you see is being done by established editors who may be suspended or blocked for inappropriate editing per WP:BLP. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted my reply as it appears that a temporary block has expired. I shall attempt to get it renewed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you have already requested renewal of the block. I have indicated my support. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection  

message: I see an IP editor reverted the edit by  that called her a conspiracy theorist, supported by (mostly) RS citations. It was the right response, but for the wrong reason. We should not use wp:wikivoice to call her a conspiracy theorist. Apart from the WP:BLP violation, the citations do not demonstrate a broad consensus across a broad spectrum of sources in support that contention.  (Compare, for example, David Icke.) It is an opinion, must be described as such and attributed as such.
If something like this is to be included in the article, it needs to say something like "Conservative media such as The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator have described her as a "liberal conspiracy theorist".  Or words to that effect. And it would be WP:UNDUE to put that in the lead. And the citations given need to actually support the claim made: at least one did not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conspiracy theorist" 

message: , there is nothing to be gained by your mutual revert warring in main space. You need to resolve your differences here at the talk page. The Pulitzer nomination credits her with being party to the exposure so it seems to me that you need to come up with an agreed wording that recognises her contribution without implying exclusivity. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "contributed to" seems fine. Wojacks (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The oddest thing about the change was the removal of "international". I struggle to see any logic to it, hence my preference for the status quo. Anyway, I'm perfectly happy with the current version by John Maynard Friedman which takes the status quo position and adds clarification rather than removing anything. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: His version is exactly the same, just with a reference added. The "international prominence" thing just seems a bit much, "prominence" does the same job. The lead is also just repeating the same info on the very next line so I've removed it, let me know if this isn't fine now. Wojacks (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you doing this? Please just stop. The Pulitzer is a prominent international prize and her work was internationally prominent. Sure, she didn't do it single handedly but she was one of the journalists that broke the Cambridge Analytica story. Why are you so bizarrely keen to minimise this? This is disruptive and is beginning to look like a grudge against the subject of the article. I don't mind running the two paragraphs together but I'm reverting the removal of "exposed" and "international". It is the status quo version of the article and it will take a better explanation than "a bit much" to justify removing it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Actually, I will agree about it being slightly too repetitive. I've brought those words back in a way that avoids the repetition and also avoids inadvertently suggesting she broke the story alone. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: I have made a start on broadening the scope of the article Public interest defence and rapidly hit the bottom of my (zero) expertise. Would anyone more familiar with the topic please contribute a section on journalism? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public interest defence