Talk:Ruth Gledhill

message: I notice Brookie that you have re-inserted some stuff about the Bishop of Southwark. In my view, it really won't do to have the article dominated by such a tangential issue, however amusing it may be. Laurence Boyce 11:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it now. The article is about Gledhill, not the Bishop. Laurence Boyce 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bashing the Bishop

message: Some anonymous editor claiming to be Gledhill has removed a poorly-footnoted item about Gledhill and a bigoted chaplain. If the item could be properly footnoted (no internet link is required, just a proper citation), why should it not be included here? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify: I struck out my own comment, based on the highly relevant issue of undue emphasis. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: It should be included here. There is no way of knowing who the anonymous editor is, but they have made no good case for removing a fact, backed with a credible reference. Even if the anonymous editor really is Gledhill (which seems unlikely), there are no grounds for removing material which is a simple statement of fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a private blog in which people may tailor their own entries to taste. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, a brief look at the edit history will show that a person claiming to be Gledhill has previously removed other material from this article, which has also been restored with good references; at one point this included the name of the co-author of a publication, whose co-authorship is a clear matter of record. There does seem to be some (currently unexplained) malicious editing of this article taking place. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please fix the "footnotes"? They don't follow ANY of the formats suggested at :WP:CITE, and are impossible to use. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite sure what you mean by "impossible to use"? They are not in the new-fangled 'style' suggested at :WP:CITE, but they are perfectly clear. Anyone could translate them into that style. You click the link and you get the article or webpage being referenced. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 23:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

text: "new-fangled"? I'm a historian by training: I can use MLA style, or Chicago, or others; but all of them have in common that the footnote itself tells you the author, the title, and where the heck the item was published, without having to chase a hyperlink. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

text: This should remain out because it gives undue weight to one unrepresentative piece in the BLP, especially as the quote of what she was responding to is more extensive than her response to it. Further, it is undue because, as the only citation of any of her work, it does not reflect her writing, and effectively distorts it. You need to adhere to higher standards in a BLP, and the subject's complaint should be taken into account. If you are unhappy with that, I suggest you do a comprehensive analysis of her whole output, and insert a sufficiently representative example of her work, so that you can incorporate such a piece in context. Remember, BLP's are not attack pages, and neither are they for self promotion. Please desist from trying to draw the subject into an edit war, and leave the deletion in place. - MishMich - Talk - 19:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, :WP:UNDUE is the relevant policy here; but so is :WP:COI, Ms. Gledhill. --165.189.32.4 (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, re confirming :WP:UNDUE; I agree, a subject should be free to comment on their own BLP, but editing is best left to others. - MishMich - Talk - 09:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the comment: "I consider Timothy Titus' edits to be sexist, misogynist, nasty, bigoted" I would additionally refer Ruthgledhill to WP:AGF and WP:PA. In the first case, even a brief glance at my personal edit history would reveal that I am a serious and long-term editor; there is no good reason to assume that I have decided to adopt a different attitude to this article from any other. In the second case, my comments have been (as they always are) exclusively about the content of the article; it is absolutely against Wikipedia policy to make personal attacks on other editors. As it happens, in this specific case, I would (in any case) challenge Ruthgledhill to produce any supporting evidence at all to support the claim that I am "sexist" or "misogynist" - it cannot be done, because such things are too far short of my nature for there to be any such proof available. As for the allegations of "nasty" or "bigoted", I suppose those are more subjective, but I would again be interested to know where Ruthgledhill finds any evidence for such claims. Finally, if Ruthgledhill really is the actual subject of this article (which may or may not be the case) then, on a purely personal note, I am very disappointed that she is so anxious to disassociate herself from her comments about Peter Mullen, as I have always considered them to be amongst the best things she has ever written, being both very funny, and richly deserved under the circumstances. However, that is an aside, whilst the references to WP:AGF and WP:PA are a serious concern. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the comment was uncalled for, for the reasons you suggest. A third party (not me) has advised the subject to distance herself from the article, because of her personal interest in it. I apologise if any of my own comments might have been read as implying any maliciousness on the part of any contributor. I also think the quote is quite endearing, given the context. However, I still feel that in such a brief biography it carries too much weight. - MishMich - Talk - 12:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. No offence taken - and likewise, none intended! I'm not convinced the comment had undue weight, but equally I haven't restored it, as I'm always happy to work towards consensus. Interestingly, there has been no comment from the editor who originally inserted the comment in July 2009, although looking at his/her edit history they do appear to be a very infrequent and occasional contributor. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 13:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mullen item