Talk:Lindy Davies
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Another Lindy Davies edit
Moved from article:
Lindy Davies is also an educator and writer, Program Director of the Henry George Institute in New York. While the educator/writer Lindy values and respects the theatrical work of the thespian Lindy, the former thinks that both names should be recognized. A Google search on the name yields approximately an equal number of references to each Lindy.
- There would be need to disambiguate if somebody wanted to create this other article (even Ms Davies).--Grahamec 01:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Koconder (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be conflicting edits of Lindy Davies : Requested protection to the page due to excessive inacurate edits to this page, potentially more than 1 person and suggest splitting.
- As Grahamec suggested, if the "educator and writer" Davies is notable enough for an article, then Lindy Davies (educator) or somesuch is appropriate with a hatnote here. No need to split. • DP • {huh?} 16:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would note in passing that "Intuitive Approach" would define most modern post-Stanislavskian approaches to acting and the claims (no longer present in the article, in the edit history) for a unique approach would need to be supported with substantial academic sources, so if they're out there, please do cite them. The phrase "strong philiosophy" is a bit silly, as is the capitalisation. • DP • {huh?} 16:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Mismatch between text and references edit
Undoubtedly a notable person, but recent edits are putting a super gloss on this article that is not warranted by the refs. The peacock phrasing is uncomfortable not least since the article would be a much better testament told straight without embellishment and bending of the refs to tell a story. Please tell it straight and note the many reversions that have already happened to these unneeded embellishments. Velella Velella Talk 21:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)