Talk:Robert Lethbridge

message: What is Optima, a journal that you have cited at Robert Lethbridge? I have reverted your contributions for now because there appears to be a grave risk of contravening our policy regarding biographies of living people. For sure, the citation of a forum is entirely unacceptable. Optima may be ok but I have my doubts unless it is the official journal produced on behalf of the Fellows (eg: at Peterhouse there was both an official "Peterhouse Record" and a student-published rag - the latter is not a reliable source). - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wow. I am surprised that they are quite so free in their opinions in print! Obviously, the interpersonal angst voiced at High Table etc represent the usual personality/college politics clashes etc and, boy, was there some when I was at Peterhouse during Trevor-Roper's time! But putting it in writing is rather different until they are safely dead and buried. However, it is apparently there and it is a reasonable source, therefore I see no reason to exclude it except possibly on the grounds of trivia and the principle of "doing least harm" in a BLP. I am a bit on the fence about that issue but WP:BOLD seems likely to apply. I wonder if it might be worth while seeking a third opinion? Would you object to that? - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * No problem at all with seeking another opinion - I think it's a good idea.Greyhyenalunch (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, I eill copy this entire thread to Talk:Robert Lethbridge and then flag it up at WP:3O or somewhere similar. Thanks for your understanding. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I reverted an edithere because of concerns regarding WP:BLP. Some of those have been addressed, as can be seen above, but I am still unsure about other aspects. In particular, the information regarding him throwing things around/denigrating students etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the comments about essay throwing and "denigration" as, presented out of context, they are a gross distortion of Eddie Butler's article, which speaks favourably, not unfavourably, of Lethbridge. The tone of the article is light-hearted and affectionate, and Butler is positive about the robust treatment given to him by a supervisor when faced with a student devoted more to his rugby than his studies. There is no use of the word, or hint of, "denigration". Given the fact that Lethbridge is reported in this article and elsewhere as being a rugby fan, and that the essay throwing is reported in the context of a message that Butler was spending too much time on rugby and not enough on work, it is a not unreasonable guess that the essay was being returned in rugby pass style, not tossed back with contempt. For the man to be characterised as an intemperate supervisor to the exclusion of any other characteristic would need much more evidence, not just a passing remark by one person in a light-hearted article. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not just removed comments about essay throwing; you have removed all reference to essay throwing, and replaced the removed piece with "In a memoir of his time at Fitzwilliam, Eddie Butler recalled how Lethbridge "taught me how to read....proper reading. His ferocity was good for me.". Clearly some individuals do believe that having their essays chucked at them when they were undergraduates, or being caned when they were at school, was good for them. Others do not. I do not think any opinion in the range should be covered here; instead, we should stay on the facts. I do not know whether you have tried to throw a stapled sheaf of A4 pieces of paper (by the far most common format for an essay) as if you were making a rugby pass, but it is an extremely difficult or even impossible thing to do, because the sheets splay. You can use less speed and force, but you end up with something highly dissimilar from a rugby pass. You need speed and force to mimimise vertical distance. But you have taken us far into the realm of speculation. We need more balance. I have removed the piece you added in, but I have not restored the original piece. I suggest we work together to find an acceptable solution. Greyhyenalunch (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The fundamental problem with this article is that it is so thin on matters of any substance that comments such as those made by Eddie Butler take on a significance out of all proportion to their weight. I hardly think it fair that an academic of some 40 years standing, and now a head of house, at Cambridge, is characterised as an intemperate essay thrower to the the exclusion of all else. And all on the basis of a light-hearted article published by ONE alumnus who clearly, from the overall tone, intended no malice to the poor man. If such behaviour was a consistent trait meted out to all and sundry over a prolonged period, it would be worth stating. As it is you not only took the quotation but chose to present it in a wholly negative light (with the gratituous addition about denigration) completely divorced from Butler's essential message that Lethbridge was a damned good teacher who was intolerant of a student who couldn't be bothered to do his work properly. My edit was designed to show how you could take the same flimsy material and make something different out of it. In truth, unless this is a defining characteristic of Lethbridge, it is trivia not worthy of inclusion at all. As I say, we need material of substance in order to write a worthy article; the present unferenced, bullet point style farrago is neither fair to the man nor worthy of Wikipedia. As a Fitzbilly, and proud of my college, I am prepared to rise to the challenge, and would welcome your collaborative help.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Lethbridge: BLP issue