As you evidence, the matter is notable to a significant portion of the
population.
As to how someone else can consider the matter not notable, perhaps
speciation is occurring...
Fred
> How is the very likely possibility of infidelity "relative trivia"? I
> consider it fairly relevant to a sectio
How is the very likely possibility of infidelity "relative trivia"? I consider
it fairly relevant to a section named "Personal life". Also, your analogy with
historical biographies is flawed, because the inclusion of this allegation
barely makes the article increase in size at all.
--
~~yutsi
S
I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
"In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
cheating
on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
all,
>
>>> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
>>> cheating
>>> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>>>
>>> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
>>> all,
>>> in a
On 7 October 2012 14:56, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, "Marc Riddell" wrote:
> >
> > I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
> >
> > "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
> cheating
> > on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter.
I disagree. Determining that someone had been hypocritical and therefore
their actions are more notable than they would otherwise have been is the
kind of judgement call we should be leaving to the secondary sources.
On Oct 7, 2012 3:29 PM, "Marc Riddell" wrote:
>
> >> I came across this today in
>> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>>
>> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
>> cheating
>> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>>
>> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
>> all,
>> in a gossip
Seems marginal, but it's not oversightable, for several reasons: It has a
reasonably reliable source (The National Enquirer has a good track record
in this area of interest); the subject and his date are public figures;
suppression would only make it worse.
The only part I have trouble with is the
On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, "Marc Riddell" wrote:
>
> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>
> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught cheating
> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>
> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it need
> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>
> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
> cheating
> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>
> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
> all,
> in a gossip tabloid rag?
FYI to all -
The article being referenced here is [[Chris Hansen]], the reporter known
for hosting *To Catch a Predator.*
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>
> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
That rather depends on who the subject is.
On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, "Marc Riddell" wrote:
> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>
> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught cheating
> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>
> Is this worthy
I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
"In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught cheating
on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at all,
in a gossip tabloid rag?
Marc Riddell
13 matches
Mail list logo
