Talk:Brian Glyn Williams
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Some sources to work on
editWhy no mention of this guy's link to the Boston bomber?
editJust asking 202.52.36.60 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've edited it to include that now. Incidentally, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had previously noted that he had contacted "a UMass Dartmouth professor," without naming Williams, even though Williams was named in the Boston Globe article that was cited. Not sure if this was just sloppiness or an intentional coverup. -2003:CA:8717:D27C:1050:2834:F1BB:9F73 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Communication with Boston bomber...
editThe user EasyAsPai recently removed well-sourced content regarding the professor's communication with the Boston bomber, arguing that: "Need to find a way to put this claim in the context of an article or something, because otherwise it just sounds like a terrorist reached out to him to chat, full stop"
I'm not opposed to more context being added, but the information is well-sourced, and it's certainly notable, in fact being one of the things that this particular professor is most famous for. Removing it is a clear violation of WP:NotCensored.
Moreover, speaking of context, looking at this article's history, it looks like it used to be much much longer, and the material was well sourced, but someone went and deleted most of the content.
In any case, I'm going ahead and restoring the noteworthy and reliably sourced content that was unduly removed. -2003:CA:8717:D2AE:F77C:3325:EF99:9D04 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)