Talk:Orville Lloyd Douglas

message: As you can see in the history of this article, it seems that NPOV is not being met. The user who has been contributing to this article, 99.244.13.233, appears unable to be neutral (others should look at this user's talk page). The grammar also needs to be cleaned up. -- WiccaIrish 00:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and Grammar

message: 99.244.13.233 / Jordanjames: Could you please list what you feel is needed in the article and perhaps we can come to a compromise. It needs to be neutral and something Douglas had said. For example, I don't recall him calling Jolie a "racist" or recommending Sophie Okonedo in particular. However, you can add something along the lines of "Douglas states ' Jolie consistently portrays herself as a Hollywood liberal who is against racism ' and that ' her superficial insensitivity to the plight of black women suggests an unwillingness to be challenged about her own values. '" -- WiccaIrish 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: When this article is unprotected, could someone add the fact that Douglas is openly gay, with the reference: 
:.
Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link leads to an article called "Lawlor's record the only issue, many say" which has nothing to do with Douglas.  I Googled for the correct link, but couldn't find anything.  It's a shame, because this article greatly needs references (I added the unreferenced tag). María (críticame) 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When this gets unprotected... 

message: I have seen very little effort on this Talk Page to resolve the controversy that instigated the edit warring in July.  If edit warring resumes, I will re-protect the article.  Please attempt to resolve controversies on this Talk Page rather than by edit warring.
--Richard 17:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting article 

message: I have just restored the citation request following the statement that Douglas' book "reached an international audience in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States." Four times this tag as been replaced with a reference to the author's website in which he himself makes this claim. The source runs counter to Wikipedia's policy concerning verifiability, in particular the sub-section 'Self-published sources (online and paper)' which states "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources", and the sub-section on 'Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves', which states that material "from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as... it is not unduly self-serving." I've found no third-party source supporting the subject's claim. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States

message: For the third time in two days, I'm reversing edits by 99.227.97.230. Another user, Blehfu, has reversed 99.227.97.230's edits during the same period. As 99.227.97.230 hasn't provided edit summaries, I cannot explain the reasoning behind his or her edits. Wishing to avoid a furthering of this back and forth, I offer the following expansion on my past edit summaries:
# I believe the Primary Sources template is appropriate as information concerned with the conflict between  Douglas and his formar publisher and the availability of the book concerned comes exclusively from Douglas' blog. No other source of informtion is provided.
# 99.227.97.230 has written "In his blog, Douglas asserted that he brought his concerns about TSAR unprofessionalism  to the " Writers Union of Canada,Ontario and Canada Arts Councils [sic]." In fact, Douglas writes in his blog that he wrote letters to "the Ontario and Canada Arts Councils". For the purposes of clarification: there is an "Ontario Arts Council", but no Canada Arts Council. I presume he is refering to the Canada Council.
# 99.227.97.230 writes, "Douglas specifically told Nurjehan Aziz the publisher of TSAR prior to the publication of the book to hire a professional copy editor but she refused." This information is not found in the citation provided.
# 99.227.97.230 writes, "Douglas was disgusted with M.G. Vassanji and Nurjehan Aziz lack of professionalism." While Douglas expresses this about the latter, he makes no such carge against Vassanji.
# 99.227.97.230 writes, "You Don't Know Me is in the collections of over one hundred and thirty public and university libraries in New Zealand, England, Canada, Australia, and the United States." Again, the source is Douglas' blog. The subject says nothing nothing concerning the number of libraries that carry his book.
# 99.227.97.230 has removed the references list on four seperate occasions. I'm at a loss to explain this action. 67.71.29.22 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources template , uncited claims and references 

message: I’m returning the primary sources template, which has been removed with no reason given. I’m adding the original research template as I think doing a Worldcat search and tabulating the results constitutes original research. Furthermore, as not all libraries are included in Worldcat searches, the result is anything but complete. 99.242.182.87 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources and original research templates