Philip Luty is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is there any reason why the legacy section should not be removed entirely? There is not a single source in it, but a more fundamental problem is that there is nothing on its own terms that connects it to Philip Luty or his works. Philip Luty is not mentioned in the legacy section. Philip Luty's works are not mentioned in the legacy section. This, to me, reeks of original research, and it is (I guess) vaguely implying that maybe Luty was somehow connected with that incident just by the juxtaposition with the rest of the article without directly saying so or providing a source to that effect. I propose deleting the section or at the very least fundamentally reworking it to address these problems if someone wants to keep it.JMM12345 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345Reply
