Talk:David Allen Green

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.

Biography

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

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Photo

I've asked Mr Green for a photo - David Gerard (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns

This person doesn't look to me as though he passes the notability guideline WP:BIO. Yes, he's been published in plenty of reliable sources, but there's a distinct lack of coverage in reliable sources about him. I won't nominate it for deletion just yet, as this is a fairly new article - perhaps some better sources can be found. Robofish (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claim

He himself wants it deleted! https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/64776337403035649 (apologies for not signing comment, etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.246.242 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's 404; no he doesn't; and even if he did, it's not his decision. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

Blogger for FT, not a columnist

This is a summary of my dispute with @Pigsonthewing from his talk page. I would appreciate comments from other editors.

The article currently says that DAG is a columnist for the FT. DAG has repeatedly objected to this on twitter, saying that he's "a blogger for FT, not a columnist". The current Wikipedia link clearly states that it is a blog, and DAG is absent from the FT list of columnists. In response, @Pigsonthewing points to Columnist, which does seem to include bloggers as a subset of columnists. 2A01:4B00:8A10:7A00:3005:9A97:F137:CC5 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very partial summary of the discussion on my talk page where I pointed out to you that the FT page does not pretend to be a list (as you claimed) of all their columnists, but is subtitled "A list of writers who contribute to the Opinion section of the Financial Times".

The lede of Columnist says "A columnist is a person who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions" which applies here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

I would say that he should be referred to as a columnist. While neither he nor the Financial Times wish to refer to him as such, it would appear that Mr. Green is in fact a columnist.

Edit:Just say writes for, per my reply to SerChevalerie

Wildjerry (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Wildjerry (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Synth. If you cannot find a source that says he is a columnist, don`t call him a columnist.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

The source, which is primary, uses the terms "commentator" and "blog". If the terminology is in dispute, we could simply say "writes for FT". SerChevalerie (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion to agree with you, however I disagree with your reasoning. This was always a terminology debate. As for the primary source, they appear to have a different definition of columnist than the dictionary. As such, columnist is accurate. That being said the other side of the debate has and good point, and it's best to avoid the issue entirely, seeing as it is mostly pedantic. Your solution is likely what I would have suggested had it not been almost 4 am local time. Wildjerry (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have an issue with the solution laid out by me and SerChevalerie Wildjerry (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. 2A01:4B00:8A10:7A00:1E6F:65FF:FE91:97CA (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been more than 96 hours, and the only response was positive, I am making the change.

Wildjerry (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]