Talk:Daniel Woolf

Added/removed couple sentences

I don't think the material recently added is in line with WP:BLP. 'Centralization and lack of consultation' is certainly an opinion, and there is no reference. Same thing for 'adversarial stance' and the edit in general. I have notified the individuals involved in the edits before, please discuss here. If there's no discussion within a couple days I'll revert the edit. Rosilisk (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, please discuss the addition on the talk page first. I am very open to having a discussion, but material regarding WP:BLP can't be contentious like that. It is not factual in the same sense. Additionally, such an inclusion may be more fitting for the Queen's University article. Please, let's have a discussion.Rosilisk (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problem for me with the addition is that it is the synthesis of two separate points. Additionally, the strike point is very irrelevant to Dr. Woolf.Rosilisk (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the last time I'll simply revert and edit the discussion page. If the issue comes up again, I'll request semi-protection of the page. As I've said, let's talk about it here. Simply re-adding the material will get nowhere. Rosilisk (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the added material is in line with WP:BLP. I believe it is factual and I believe it is relevant. It is not synthesis: it is two ideas linked by a co-ordinating conjunction. The information is attributable or verifiable even if not attributed. There are no attributions for most of the information in this entry, and Woolf's own c.v. does not strictly meet the guidelines for reliable sources. So I don't believe you can cast stones. Just for interest's sake, I have checked out Bob Rae's Wikipedia entry and it has a lot of what you claim is not permissable in biographies of living people. I don't see why I have to justify myself to you, and why you think you have some final say over this. Try to have it protected if you wish, but until then I will add factual information about some of the issues arising at Queen's during Woolf's tenure. Magnus es (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The material added is indeed a Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Did you read the definition? Additionally, you cannot cite another article as defense that this one should also be held to lower standards. Finally, any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. This is exactly that. I (nor many others, I imagine) is going to challenge where Woolf was educated. However, the material is contentious and is likely to be challenged (I am challenging it!). Thank-you for responding, I won't seek semi-protection. Although I do not agree with the material being added to Woolf's page, if you were to find a more clearly citable (and without original research) way of discussing his controversial tenure at Queen's I would be agreeable. Rosilisk (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read the definition and I disagree with you on it. I don't appreciate the insult or your tone: I have not asked you if you read it. My comment about the Bob Rae page goes directly to the issue of what is considered acceptable in Wikipedia. Look at the biographies of other living people and you will see how widespread what you consider contentious material is. Does that perhaps suggest to you that your interpretation is in the minority? I repeat my question: where does your authority come from? Why are you so certain you are the wise and correct arbiter of editorial correctness? We have two interpretations here of the guidelines but you are absolutely certain yours is correct. I'm not going to waste my time on this any longer. Congratulations: you succeeded in shutting off debate and I hope you take some pleasure in preventing anything that might be considered controversial from being said about your university principal. Clearly, if every living person had such enthusiastic guardians, Wikipedia would be so much better than it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.130.35 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Woolf. 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/20090423190652/http://www.arts.ualberta.ca:80/~dwoolf/cv.html to http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~dwoolf/cv.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)