Talk:Paul Atherton

/* Paul Atherton - Case Law */

Dear Editors,

User:Bbb23 has reversed an edit of mine in respect to Paul Atherton's recent Case Law Judgement in respect to his Judicial Review at the Royal Courts of Justice on the grounds that the amended entry was biased (self-serving) and required secondary sourcing.

I did reach out to clarify why Bbb23 felt it was self-serving, as case law affects everyone, as it changes law and why he didn't think the Royal Courts of Justice published Judgement and the respected newsire Disability News Service article were not viable secondary sources and indeed how to appraoch what he cites as "Take to talk page" but have received no answers to any of my questions on his talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23#Paul_Atherton_-_Case_Law .

I'd be grateful of assistance on the points that I rasied to him.

Case Law is Law, and the changes here for the Department of Work and Pensions are seismic for the disabled community in the UK as the Judge opens the department to law suits for failing to have complied with their statutory duty for years. So unclear why this would not be valid and valuable information to Wikipedia and the actual Judgement is cited, there can be no better evidence of its import than that?

The entry read as follows:

On 13 February 2019 Atherton took the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to the Royal Courts of Justice for Judicial Review for a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decision to refuse to communicate with Disabled Claimants by email in breach of both his Human Rights and the Equality Act. Whie the case Paul Atherton v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (who at the time was Amber Rudd) was dismissed, Judge Jeremy Johnson QC made it clear that the DWP had failed in all it's duties and had breached Atherton's and othe disabled claimants rights:

The approach of the DWP to the Claimant, and to many other disabled benefit claimants, failed over a period of years to comply with its statutory obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (and, before that, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995). Those with disabilities that meant that they had difficulty communicating by post were, in many instances, unable to secure a satisfactory means of communication with the DWP. This in turn meant that some went without benefits that were essential to them. At the time this claim was filed the DWP had still not complied with its statutory duties in respect of the Claimant.

I'd appreciate if any editor can let me know what more is required to get this amendment published. Many thanks. 37.205.56.236 (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

The text that your attempting to add says that "the case Paul Atherton v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was dismissed". You've included a lengthy blockquote from Judge Johnson on why the court felt that DWP had failed in its duties, but you haven't included the judge's reasoning on why the case itself failed. Highlighting one aspect of the case over another does not seem to WP:BALANCE the issue. Can you elaborate on this? Also, the issue ought to have WP:SECONDARY sourcing. The source you've provided here is an advocate of disability rights, which would not be considered an independent source. These need to be provided before the request can be accepted. Regards,  Spintendo  11:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me User:spintendo the quote I supplied, was in fact the Case Law that relates to this case. As I'm sure you read in the Judgement It was the first of the two paragraphs in the Outcome of the case. As you already think the quote was lengthy, it seemed justified to remove the second paragraph, as it was acknowledged in my submission that the Judicial Review was dismissed and the source to the judgement provided. It is the paragrpahs of the Judgement that are cited as "Case Law" not the actual judgement which often will have little or no bearing whatsoever in respect to that.

That said I've included the only two paragraph of outcomes that form the judgement of this case, if you feel that addresses that issue?

Outcome

107. The approach of the DWP to the Claimant, and to many other disabled benefit claimants, failed over a period of years to comply with its statutory obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (and, before that, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995). Those with disabilities that meant that they had difficulty communicating by post were, in many instances, unable to secure a satisfactory means of communication with the DWP. This in turn meant that some went without benefits that were essential to them. At the time this claim was filed the DWP had still not complied with its statutory duties in respect of the Claimant.

108. It is understandable that the Claimant should continue to be sceptical about the DWP's commitment to ensuring compliance with its statutory duties. His scepticism may prove to be well-founded. As matters stand, however, the DWP has offered the Claimant a system of communication that (subject to effective implementation) amounts to a reasonable adjustment and complies with its PSED. It follows that the claim for judicial review falls to be dismissed.

.

You've made claim that the Disability News Service [DNS] is somehow biased by the slection of it's subject. That would be the same as saying a Sport newswire is biased towards sport and cannot be used because it had written an article on sport. If Reuters can be considered a legitimate news source then it follows any recognised Newswire must be. The Strand Newswire only focuses on court judgements for instance but is not avilable online.

DNS is a recognised Newswire that simply supplies news on the subject of Disability and Welfare issues. DNS is a news subscription service and only produces approximately six stories a week. Therefore, it choses and writes its stories very sparingly. To imply by doing so, that it undermines its journalistic independence, means the same crtieria should be applied to every news service.

"Disability News Service (DNS) is run by John Pring, an experienced journalist who has been reporting on disability issues for more than 20 years.

He launched DNS in April 2009 to address the absence of in-depth reporting in both the specialist and mainstream media on issues that affect the lives of disabled people."

The Case Law is in respect to disability so it would have no interest to any wider sector. It only applies to those addressing issues with Disability in respect to the Department of Work and Pensions but as that affects around 3 Million people in the UK, which is not an insignificant number.

This is the story published or used as a source for their own story on the following websites:

Learning Disability Wales (National Charity https://www.ldw.org.uk/dwps-failure-to-meet-legal-duties-on-accessible-information-highlights-the-ignorance-towards-this-basic-human-right/

AccessAble (Disability Guide used by over 1.5 Million users) https://www.accessable.co.uk/articles/dwp-failed-for-years-to-meet-legal-duties-on-accessible-information-says-judge

Disabled People Against Cuts (Disability Right's Campaigner) https://dpac.uk.net/2019/02/news-from-disability-news-service-28th-feb/

Possability People (Charity) www.possabilitypeople.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/.../NEWS-28-February-2019.docx

Hope that helps 195.147.192.7 (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply 10-MAR-2019

Thank you for providing the needed information. The previously withheld sentence gives us the final statement on the situation:

It is understandable that the Claimant should continue to be sceptical about the DWP's commitment to ensuring compliance with its statutory duties. His scepticism may prove to be well-founded. As matters stand, however, the DWP has offered the Claimant a system of communication that (subject to effective implementation) amounts to a reasonable adjustment and complies with its PSED.

• Incorporating a claim into the article that was judged as dissmissable gives that claim a certain weight that it would not hold with the extenuating circumstances being disclosed (that the claim was dismissed.) Introducing it amounts to WP:SOAP in that it attempts to introduce a POV that was not sustained by the court. It is my opinion that the claim should be incorporated into the article when the claimants skepticism has proven to be right.
• With regards to "DNS is a recognised Newswire that simply supplies news, the fact remains that DNS is run by one person. If the only source Mr. Pring is using is the court case itself, then their reports on that story are coming from only that one primary source. Additionally, even Mr. Pring — a journalist with impeccable credentials — might agree on the potentiality of his role as a disabled person coming into conflict with his role as a journalist. To use the words of the court case mentioned above, my skepticism in using Mr. Pring as a source may well prove to be unfounded. But for now, asking for a secondary source free of this potential for conflict seems to be a reasonable expectation.  Spintendo  17:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Response 11-Mar-2019

Hi User:Spintendo as presvioulsy stated, the outcome of the Judgement was not the point here. The significance is in Obiter Dictum. The news IS the Court Case, so it would be impossible to source from aything else. This is a High Court Judgement in the highest court in the United Kingdom the Royal Courts of Justice which sets Judicial Precedent under the auspices of Stare Decisis.

The significane is the placing of the paragraph under Outcome, which acknowledges that the Claimant Paul Atherton acting as a Litigant in person had won the case on the issue he had brought to the cout. The fact that the Department of Work and Pensions had shifted the goal posts during the two year legal process, meant that they had won on a technicality, but the judge wanted to enusre it was clear, as future precedent, that the DWP had indeed breached their statutory duty. It therefore borders on Ratio decidendi but even as Obiter Dictum, as in the Wikipedia cited Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd the influence is marked and worthy of note. The Wikipedia entry above only cites the Judgements as Primary sources, there was no need for secondary sources, can I ask what is different here? 195.147.192.7 (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Response reply 11-MAR-2019

  Discussion required  

1. Disputatious issues ought not to be resolved through the COI edit request feature, which is primarily meant for simple requests to be reviewed and applied as necessary on behalf of users whose role as a Wikipedia editor comes into conflict with some other external role.
2. The process of content dispute resolution needed here should continue with the discussion of these issues on the talk page followed by the subsequent dispute resolution strategies listed under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.

Regards,  Spintendo  17:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Response reply 12-Mar-2019

Hi User:Spintendo

Having followed the link you kindly provided I read the following:

"Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC."

I am unclear as to what the contention actually is here. I've asked the question why this Case Law isn't treated as others on Wikipedia, but have yet to receive an answer? Could you or another editor provide that answer please?

I also notice that the contention appears to be related to some alleged conflict of interest on my part, though that doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere?

Be grateful of some clarity?

195.147.192.7 (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC about Case Law in Royal Courts of Justice in respect to Paul Atherton's Bio entry

Is there a reason the case law change won by Paul Atherton Vs The Secretary of State of Work and Pensions should not be included in his entry? 144.178.8.38 (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• This BLP appears to be a bit of an "advertorial" already, and appending further "stuff" will make it more so. Collect (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• I would agree with the above statement. The article is promotional and reads like full puff piece and could do with a trim and copyedit. scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for the contributions Collect & scope_creep, I'm afraid I cannot comment on the past decade's worth of editorial decisions in respect to this Bio having not been a participant in them. My concern here is simply with the Case Law and its significance as elucidated above. Most notably the fact that Wikipedia clearly believes Case Law is notable as deemed by the page on the subject and the cases it also cites within its pages, such as Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd & Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co and even in specific cases in respect to Judicial Review as in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd which aligns in part to the Judicial Review Paul Atherton v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. To argue that an addition to an entry cannot be made because you deem previous editorial decisions to be incorrect or inappropriate, seems a little specious, surely that needs to be taken up with each respective editor either at the time or historically? It must be the case if this document is to be treated seriously that each addition must be viewed on its own merits and whether that addition is notable or not? I obviously would argue that a British Law Change is indeed notable and would like to hear sound arguments against that position? Many thanks. 144.178.8.38 (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts

The RSA "Fellowship" is not a noteworthy honor. It is a fundraising tool of the RSA, as per this page, which invites readers to join the "global network of nearly 30,000 Fellows." The application form suggests that almost anyone willing to pay the 75GBP entry fee and 14.83GBP per month thereafter could qualify as an "RSA Fellow." HouseOfChange (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Whilst there is clearly much contention around the "Honour" of the RSA Fellow on Wikipedia. It emphatically cannot be bought, as suggested by HouseofChange. To be accepted as a Fellow of the RSA, as the link supplied above evidences, applicants have to prove "a commitment to social change", provide two referees to support the contention and then be accepted by the RSA selections panel. Fast tracked application can be made if an applicant has made a "prominent contribution to social change" that can be evidenced online.

Whilst it is clear from the RSA website that many Fellows join the fellowship to simply donate to support the Charity it is not clear how many of the 30,000 Global membership are active members and how many merely donators.

The fact that the House is based in London and that all significant research is based there would imply a distinct difference between a Fellow based in London (9,000 Fellowship in and around) supporting the RSA work there and that done further afield. Though the distinction is clearly not evidenced by the FRSA Post-nominal letters or on the RSA's Website.144.178.8.38 (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Valentine's gift?

The sentence about Vogue's gift recommendation needs clarification. Currently the sentence says that Atherton was recommended as a gift. I am presuming that what is meant is that one of the products from his company was praised, but the reference is not on line, so I can't tell which.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Katharine Birbalsingh

The paragraph about Katharine Birbalsingh and a school that didn't open is sourced to an opinion piece written by Atherton himself, not to an independent article by a journalist. Also, the sentence doesn't say that a documentary was made, only that he was invited to make one. I think this whole paragraph should be removed unless there is independent coverage, such as a review of the documentary or a news report of Atherton's contribution to the event. At the very least, the text should be changed to say what he did, not what he was invited to do.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Anne Delong:  Done Removed the paragraph:

In 2012 he was invited to make a documentary about the founding of a Free school (England) by head teacher Katharine Birbalsingh in the borough of Lambeth in London. Though this school never came into being, he was invited back in 2015 when the Michaela Community School in Wembley eventually opened.

For other editors: feel free to add it back if there are reliable sources supporting it. --MarioGom (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Notability and sources

• I removed some content from the article which was sourced using self-published or non-reliable sources (diff). The status of the article regarding reliable sources is appalling.
• I have recently added back the COI template (diff). Itsallnewtome claims the issues are solved (diff). I have not gone through all previous discussions, so I think other editors could comment on which tags are still relevant: Bbb23, Girth Summit. --MarioGom (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  MarioGom, I recently had a long discussion with Itsallnewtome on my talk page about this article. (here) I came away with the impression that the subject is probably notable, but the article really ought to be cut down to a short stub. Even after your efforts MarioGom, there's still a lot of poorly sourced stuff in there, using primary sources, blogs (I include in that the 'Disability News Service' , which sounds impressive but upon investigation appears to be a one-man band operating an online news letter) , self-authored stuff, etc. I would suggest that the vast majority of this article simply be cut away, and we retain a paragraph saying he's a London-based film maker, who's work is showcased in the BFI, perhaps mentioning one or two notable works. The rest seems to me like a lot of puffery and coat racking. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit I realised I posted my last contribution to you on the "archived" conversation we were having, so you may not have seen it. I'd asked if that re-written opening paragraph (which I was working on in my sandbox and has now been published) was appropriate and in the right tone? As you'd suggested, before I put any great effort into this aritcle I wanted to address the elephant in the room, so having cited the reviews I'd uncovered of Silent Voices in Empire Magazine & DVD Monthly which weren't then available to discover online, in the opening paragraph and the references to the BFI and the Museum of London, I removed the COI to see if we could get concensus on that point to begin with i.e is Atherton notable? I was then going to go through each section one by one, finding proper/reliable/primary sources if available, cutting as appropriate if not and rediting as a whole.

My interest in the subject was of course piqued by the fact that Atherton's been homeless for a decade, yet remaining to campaign, produce & advise. Through my earlly investigations I thnik most of the self references actually lead to primary sources that can be substantiated, but aren't online. It may be why some of the previous editors re-edits point to things the subject has posted himslef about something online, rather than directly to the prinary source that isn't. As we mentioned, the BBC News piece about his film The Ballet of Change that was accessible at the time of the creation of the article, but that has long since perished (and was taken out of the references altogether, rather than left in as a dead link) and the history of the Billborad that the City AM newspaper (for some reason an unverified reference) sourced their chronology from, was on the official Piccadilly Lights Website at the time (according to the edited references) and that too of course, no longer exists, as the board has had a significant change since the film was shown a decade ago.

The issue of notability for me though, was on this basis of the interest of the person and which is why, when we initially discussed things, I focussed on those issues rather than his work, which is of far less interest to me in itself, but it seemed the best way to start, as seemingly, as you suggested, this was Wikipedians primary interest.

Explaining you'd rarely seen this argument presented in any other way, even though this was clearly stated in wikipedia's guideline as I mentioned.

" "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

The subjectivity of words like "interesting" or "Unusual" certainly blur things further. For instance I would argue that a politically campaigning homeless producer/director would certainly tick the boxes on both.

Secondary journalistic sources from whole television shorts (4thoughts, Channel 4), through long radio interviews (Homeless, Colourful Radio) to full page articles (The Big Issue) and a chapter in a book ("Crippled - Austerity and the Demonization of Disabled People" by Guardian Journalist Frances Ryan) have been cited on the subject. It reads as if the original notability came from the coverage of the short film on the coca-cola billboard at Piccadilly Circus though."

Therefore it's the accumulation of events like inspiring book characters, performing in plays, campaigning with those who suffer with his condition and his continuing homelessness and battles with the state for better provision for welfare, that would make him worthy of note in my opinion. I think my (and one would argue many other editors, as this article seems to have been in existence for so long) confusion comes from the seeming reliance on press articles for notability which only demonstrates "Fame or Popularity" rather than notability or interest?

Anyway, can we please agree on the subject's notability on the mere fact that his films have been collected into two separate recognised institutions and his work has been reviewed in recognised publications? Itsallnewtome (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom Girth Summit The evidence supporting that Atherton was diagnosed with MECFS was taken from a Trailer for a documentary on the subject entitled What About ME?, MarioGom took this reference out because the link was dead, which has been a concern of mine since engaging with Wikipedia (as I mentioned above). Once somethings been refernced if that link dies for some reason, why is it removed? I've discovered the film "What About Me?" on Pantaflix with Atherton's credit on and it had previously been available on "What About Me?" on Amazon Prime be grateful to know how to reinstate the edit (as I'd conclude that would be sufficient evidence of the documentary's existence and his participation in it)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsallnewtome (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom also deleted two news sources one from Time Out (magazine) & one from Reuters in respect to an event which Atherton was in attendance at in respect to Game of Thrones. As it clearly evidenced the claim the editor made, be garetful to know what the issue was there too?

Hi Itsallnewtome - first, a quick reminder to sign your posts, otherwise notifications don't get sent.

I'm on mobile at the moment, and haven't looked into these changes in detail, but if sources are no longer available, and they can't be retrieved using the Internet Archive, then the information is no longer verifiable, and should be removed - we can't take it on faith that a vanished source supported the assertion. This is why it's good practice to provide as much information as possible when adding a citation, to help with retrieval should it no longe be available later. With regard to the stuff about him attending a Game of Thrones event, that might have been reliably sourced, but was it relevant? I haven't looked into it, but we have to give things due weight. If it basically said he went to an event, I don't think that's of encyclopedic interest. Hope that makes sense. GirthSummit _(blether)

Girth Summit I loook forward to getting your detailed response to all of the above questions when you land back on your computer. But Atherton didn't just attend the event, as the editor stated, he won (with two others) the three day, 72 hour screening marathon that HBO had set as a competition to launch the DVD of Series 1 -7, which was clearly newsworthy by the reference to the Reuters interviews when they'd won. There is no weighting to something happening in someones life, it either happened or it didn't and can either be evidenced or it can't. Or do biographical pieces on wikipedia work differently to other encyclopedic ones? Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome: Not everything that exists or can be proved belongs to Wikipedia. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and, more generally: What Wikipedia is not. We do not aim to write full biographies to the extent that these are published in books. We compile encyclopedic articles covering notable aspects of notable subjects. Given the state of sourcing in the article, probably the best way to move forward is starting from scratch from reliable sources exclusively (reliable, independent from the subject, secondary) as much as possible. And after that other sources could be used to complement these. --MarioGom (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom Can you let me know what editors interpret the Wikipedia guideline "to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life" to actually mean? What for instance would you expect to see in a written piece about that persons life? Waht say under the sections early years or personal etc.? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome: Whatever reliable sources report. For the most notable individuals, let's say Steven Spielberg or Stanley Kubrick there is a lot of detail that spans multiple articles and use several published biographies as sources. For others, such as Eduardo Gómez (actor), it will be a much shorter article because there are less reliable sources covering it. And for most people, there will be simply no Wikipedia article. --MarioGom (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Would really appreciate your feedback on the article as it currently stands Girth Summit and MarioGom? I think HouseOfChange has taken out all non reliable sources, I'm still unclear about the narrative style of writing for Wikipedia, as in the interest of keeping things factual, it doesn't read naturally, but this seems to be Houseofchange and other wikipedia editor's writing style. Itsallnewtome (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome, sorry for the slow response. To be honest, I'm still of the opinion that much of the material should be cut out. Examples:

• the court case thing, I'd cut out that entire section, most especially the bit where we're cherry-picking one of the judge's closing comments to quote;
• I don't think we should be mentioning his son by name (we tend not to name family members unless they are independently notable);
• we shouldn't be listing the symptoms of his medical conditions, especially when we don't have sourcing to say that he suffers from these specific symptoms - we should just link to the relevant article about the condition;
• there's some stuff in the 'Career' section that I really think ought to go. We're not writing a CV for him - if appearances aren't mentioned in sources that are independent of the thing he's appearing at, we should leave them out. That goes for stuff like the Muybridge Short Film Festival, the Colourful Radio appearances, possibly some other stuff (I haven't been through all of it in full detail)

Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

"He is known for being the only person to have screened a film on the Coca Cola billboard on Piccadily Lights at Piccadilly Circus with The Ballet of Change"

Neither source cited supports this claim. The City AM piece cited here (and also in the body of the article) does not contain the word "Atherton" or mention his film. The second (a BFI record) says only that his film was "first shown" there, which is entirely different from saying it was the only film ever shown there. I am removing this unsubstantiated claim. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC) -

HouseOfChange There's clearly no contention that Atherton was the Producer & Director of the film, as cited in the BFI reference. In the chronology listed by City AM, the film is cited as being the only one screened on the Coca-Cola Billboard, as there was no evidence of any further screening of a film on the board before it ceased to exist I concluded that it therefore must be the only. Would a confirmation email from the owners of Piccadilly Lights Land Securities suffice on this issue? Itsallnewtome (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome: I concluded that it therefore must be the only. That is original research and it does not belong to Wikipedia. A private email is not a valid source either. Sources must be reliable and verifiable. If there was, for example, a published biography or news piece mentioning this fact, it could be used. --MarioGom (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is one of the relevant passages of the original research policy:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
— WP:SYNTH

--MarioGom (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Itsallnewtome Your claim is based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH rather than a reliable source. Will an email from an unknown source prove that Atherton is "known for" something that you kinda guess happened but was never stated in any public source? No, it won't.

Similarly, the claims that Atherton inspired a novel by Wendy Perriam and a chapter of a book by Clive Rich are not supported by the sources this article cites. Neither is there any support for either claim elsewhere on the Internet except for websites parroting what this article currently claims. Removing these unsupported claims as well. (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi HouseOfChange, As I'm clearly new here and finding my way, a little support wouldn't go amiss. The wikipedia editor had actually used the term Case-Study not "Chapter" when referring to Clive Rich's The YES book and I found that through a Google Search just now, where Atherton and his company are clearly named here. As for the Wendy Perriam book (again here the editor said inspired a character and not as you suggested, the book as a whole) I'm guesing that would be an acknowldgement in the book, so surely wouldn't you have to go back to the printed source, as the link is now seemingly dead, to evidence that fact? There seems to be much reliance on what can be found online rather than what actaully exists amongst Wikipedians, or is that just my experience to date?

As for my suggestion of actally writing to the only source, (i.e. the Landlords of the Piccadilly Lights) that could actually confirm the claim of whether anyone else has screened a film on the Coca-Cola billboard before it was closed (as a Londoner I remembering it being a big thing at the time), I beleive I'd read that device was used somewhere else on Wikipedia, that a published email from the only source that could substantiate a claim was permissable? From the references I've researched to date, I believe it was on the old version of the Piccadilly Lights website, which I'm trying to locate through WayBack now. Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome (Just concerning the books by Clive Rich and Wendy Perriam.) This "Paul+Atherton"&q=atherton#v=snippet&q=atherton&f=false Google book version shows that Atherton's "case study" is a shaded box about 200 words long, where "Paul Atherton, a producer with Simple Productions" describes helping his girlfriend buy a car. Atherton's self-promoting claims were not "retold" by Rich (as the article claimed), they were quoted verbatim. Nor do a few paragraphs in a shaded box constitute "one of the negotiation case studies" in Rich's book; a case study is "an up-close, in-depth, and detailed examination of a subject of study, as well as its related contextual conditions." Rich introduces the anecdote as an example of bad negotiation by the Renault dealer. In short, the only RS supporting Atherton's being mentioned by Clive Rich fully justifies removing promotional claims that inflate his importance.

Similarly, I was able to read the Wendy Perriam book with a free trial subscription to Kindle Unlimited. She does mention Paul Atherton in the acknowledgments, thanking him for "sharing with me the story of his own chequered childhood in care." She does not say that he inspired or even "helped inspire" her book's protagonist Eric. In this case also, the only RS supporting Atherton's being mentioned by Wendy Perriam fully justifies removing promotional claims that inflate his importance. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange There is more than one definition of Case-Study in this context, in the case of Clive Rich's book it clearly means a particular instance of something used or analysed in order to illustrate a thesis or principle. So the statement was factual. As I progress to improve the article, can you clarify that points of factual interest should not be included? Well done too for finding the acknowledgement in Wendy Perriam's book (which page is that acknowledgement?), as the protaganist had a chequered childhood in care, I can see where the wiki editor drew their conclusion, but accept that it doesn't explicitly say the words "helped inspire". So why not state what was written, rather than excluding the entry altogether?

Hi HouseOfChange just discovered this in the News section of Land Securities' website on Wayback that clearly states it was the first film to be shown on their digital Coca-Cola acvertising hoarding The Ballet of Change An Historic Film Event Itsallnewtome (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome The article is clearly a press release from "Message PR." Claims in press releases such that something is "an historic event" or "the first time ever" are clearly promotional expressions of opinion, not fact-checked reliable sources. But it's probably reliable about the names and topics of the films in question and where they were shown, so if you want to create a citation to use in the body of the article where it talks about the film, go ahead. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange You do understand that this is on the Piccadilly Lights website, therefore from the only source that could verify the claim? If I could find a published version of the press release in a news publication, you would claim it to be verified wouldn't you (even though as with all Press Release it would be simply republished verbatum)? This seems like a very odd position to take. Not belived if from the "horses mouth" but believed if broadcast by the "town cryer"? I could understand your position if it was from a non-attributable source, but coming from the only organisation that could confirm the claim - seems an odd thing to contest? Be grateful of some clarity? Equally you made no mention of my points above, which I would also be grateful of a response too? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Itsallnewtome It is a press release. When PR is the only source, that's because reporters etc. didn't feel enough interest to write about the topic. The talk page is for talk about improving the article; our goal is to improve the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

HI HouseOfChange You're confusing two issues here. I'd be really grateful if you can read all the above so I don't have to keep repeating myself. but the issue isn't that there wasn't sufficient media coverage at the time, there clearly was (E.g. BBC News, Time Out (magazine) & Evening Standard) the problem is that ten years later it's not visible online today because those links are dead and seemingly not accessible on Wayback (but it's not an easy search, so they could be, which is why I asked you the question, if I could find them, would that solve the issue? Alternatively, if the notation was listed as part of the boards "history section" on the Piccadilly Lights website on Wayback, would that suffice?) and we're trying to address that, in order to improve and ensure the accuracy the article. You've made no mention of the citations I discovered about The Yes book, that you were unable to find, by the way? Are we at least agreed that the subject is notable on the basis that he has had his films collected into two recognised institutions and his work reviewed in recognised publications? Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome The article is constructed from information we have, based on RS, not on information that might hypothetically exist. I am removing unsupported claims about Atherton from the bio. Yes, I have read your arguments above. Stick to improving the article, that's my advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange The information clearly exists, it's just not available online. As I said Wikipedians seem only concerned with what's happened in the past 6 months, rather than any information that exists pre-internet or outside the 3% of the internet, Google searches find. That seems strangely lazy and lackadaisical for a Wikipedian editor in terms of accuracy and breadth of their subjects and I'm hoping to address that for this article and explore the availability of offline sources. As my initial discussion with Girth Summit stated I'm extremely interested in this person and this is my first attempt at re-editing an article. What I need though is the boundaries of what's acceptable to experienced editors as they clearly dominate Wikipedia and from my experience here, seem keen to put off new entrants rather than assist them. So far, I've discovered people who are not working collaboratively, as I expected, but dictatorially, which is hugely dissapointing in this open source environment. Garnering answers from experienced editors helps inordinately to understanding how things work and what's acceptabe here. Being ignnored of course, does not. Nonetheless I'm hoping Girth, who has been amazingly supportive and the single exception to the rule to date, continues to be so. I would ask you again though " Are we at least agreed that the subject is notable on the basis that he has had his films collected into two recognised institutions and his work reviewed in recognised publications?" I'd hate to invest the significant time this is clearly going to require, if it could be completely wasted. Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome I think consensus is that he is (barely) notable for having his films collected. Having work reviewed in recognized publications does not establish notability. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome: Offline sources are valid too (WP:OFFLINE). If the subject is covered in a specialized magazine, book, etc, that can be used as a reference too. Note that the reliability rules apply to both offline and online sources. --MarioGom (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Itsallnewtome, thanks for the kind words; in fairness though, I don't think that anyone here is trying to be obstructionist, I think they're just offended by the overall state of the article, which is still full of unreliable sources and assertions that I personally don't think belong there.

There has already been a lot added to this talk page since I last dropped by, and I haven't got time right at the moment to look through all of it. With regard to the issue about sources however, we can use reliable sources that online or offline, so long as they are properly cited; we can't, however, use sources that were once online, but are now no longer accessible - since the information in them can no longer be verified, we can no longer use it. The fact that there was once a working link doesn't help us if we can't access the link to check the information - that's just the way it is. If you check any of the articles I've authored, you'll see that I frequently use printed books that aren't available online - the 'cite book' or 'cite news' templates are good for this.

On the question that forms the title of this section (Is he known as the only person...) - forgive me for not having read through everything above, but have you found any sources that say that this? It looks to me like you have a source to say that he is the first person to have done so, but unless I've missed something there's nothing that says only person. We can't infer from the fact that he was the first, and that we can't find that anyone else has done it, that he was the only person - I concede that that's a bit pedantic, but that's how we roll.

My overall view on this hasn't really changed - I think that the subject is probably notable, but that the article should be stripped back to a stub - I we had a few sentences saying that he is a film maker from London, that his work appears in such and such museums/institutions, and that he was the first person to have a film displayed on the Coca Cola billboard, all supported by decent refs, I think that the concerns about notability and COI editing would evaporate. All the WP:COATRACKING about court cases, stuff sourced to blogs, affiliated websites, primary sources and interviews in local newspapers - it should all go. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit, thanks as ever for the detailed response. There has been nothing whatsoever added to the article since we originally engaged. I changed the opening paragraph, which I sent to you for notes before doing so, however HouseOfChange amended that and has removed entries, as has MarioGom, but there has been nothing added whatsoever.

Where's the best place to argue about notability on the issue of an "Interesting" and "Unusual" subject. As you know that has always been my stance and that it is the compilation of things Atherton has accomplished despite being homeless for the past decade, that I believe makes that case, but not sure where to make that argument on Wikipedia? So examples like the British "case law" he created, rather than becoming WP: COATRACKING actually become the reasons for notability (although in that particular case, I think the Judgement as a reference has been argued sufficiently by another editor on the talk page).

In respect to the Coca-Cola billboard, HouseOfChange argues that the news reported by the owners of the site, Land Securities, stating that The Ballet of Change was the first film broadcast on their advertising hoarding, isn't sufficient as evidence, regardless of the fact that they would be the only source to be able to substantiate the claim. Be interested to get your take on that? Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome regarding the billboard thing, if I read the above discussion correctly, other editors are taking issue with the claim that he is the only person to have a film displayed there, as it is unsourced; I think you're saying that the Land Securities ref says that he is the first person to have had a film displayed there, which is a slightly different assertion. It's not an ideal ref, since it's affiliated to the organisation - we prefer reliable secondary references in general, but I don't think that's a particularly big deal - the main problem appears to me to be the difference between first and only.

Regarding the court case stuff, I'm uneasy about the whole section, since none of the sources is great. Court document = primary source; Disabled News Service = blog; article on Local Government Lawyer website = probably WP:UGC (see their 'write for us' page, and the fact this article has no byline); Mishcon de Reya article = corporate blog on a legal services company's website. I suspect that what has happened here is that one or more editors have decided that the outcome of this court case was important, and have scoured the internet trying to find sources, however questionable, that would allow them to cobble something together about it. That is not the aim of Wikipedia, which is to reflect what reliable secondary sources say about a subject, and remain silent about anything else. Please don't think I'm trying to belittle the subject here; my concern is simply that, since reliable sources don't appear to have picked up on this, we shouldn't either. Perhaps COATRACKING is slightly wide of the mark, but I do get a sense of POV pushing/WP:RGW, which doesn't sit easily with me, however laudable the intentions.

As for the best place to establish once and for all whether he is notable, that is most commonly done by nominating to AfD; last time that happened with this subject, no consensus was arrived at. I'd be interested to know what HouseOfChange and MarioGom think about the subject's overall notability. As I've said before, I think he's probably just about notable, based on the reviews of his work and his presence in a couple of significant collections, but I don't have a strong view on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The first criterion of WP:ANYBIO seems to be met: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. (see Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts).
• I don't think it passes notability criteria for creative professionals (WP:FILMMAKER), unless the two exhibitions mentioned in the article count for The person's work (or works) has [...] been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.. I have no idea how this is usually interpreted.
• I'm concerned that it is still not clear that regardless of notability (the article can exist), its contents still need to adhere to the verifiability and reliable sources guidelines. --MarioGom (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom, I agree with you about the issues with the content - I think Itsallnewtome is eager to settle the matter of notability before putting effort into an article that may end up being deleted anyway.

From my perspective, they have two possible shouts at notability.

• WP:NCREATIVE Criterion 4 (which you've touched on). I think that there are sources to confirm that Atherton's work is exhibited at the Museum of London, and it is included in the curated archive of the British Film Institute; I also know from past discussions that 'several' is sometimes interpreted as 'two or more' in notability discussions. This argument is probably supportable.
• Criterion 3 is also a possibility, if we believe that their body of work is well-known (pretty subjective), and if we can establish that it has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. I think Itsallnewtome found a couple of reviews; I haven't read them myself, but if they're decent length reviews then I think this might fly.

On these grounds, I think that he is probably just about notable, and I would probably vote 'weak keep' if this article were to be nominated to AfD again; however, I firmly agree with you that the content needs to be drastically trimmed, so that it only reflects what the few reliable sources we have about the subject say. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Atherton is probably "just barely" notable, but that is no excuse for this article to COATRACK so many links to his Facebook, YouTube, and other self-promoting publications. Any statements in the bio should reflect RS. An encyclopedia article is not a catalog of brief mentions of one-off events.HouseOfChange (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Atherton's films are not notable, per Wikipedia policy

Our London Lives does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for film notability, nor does The_Ballet_of_Change:_Piccadilly_Circus. They come closest to meeting "selected by a national archive" -- but neither the BFI archive nor the collection of the Museum of London is a "national archive" comparable to the highly selective benchmark described at WP:NFO. Anyone interested in the AfDs for those two films, you can participate here and here. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

While reviewing the many Paul-Atherton-centered edits of "Amanda Paul," I discovered two more articles about non-notable Atherton films, so see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_October_8#Silent_Voices_(2005_film) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colour_Blind_(film). HouseOfChange (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Amanda Paul" writing about films made by Amanda and Paul. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Sumit, I know we discussed this issue on your talkpage and as you'll recall the collection policies of both institutions would contest HouseOfChange's position on this. The dilemma of being British is that eveything we do has existed way longer and is by definition bigger than anybody elses collection. The American Film "Registry" is barely 30 years old and is an adendum to a Libarary and doesn't truly exist as a National Film Archive. Unlike the BFI which began it's Film Archive in 1935 and collects film from when film first began in 1895 and is entirely dedicated to the preservation of film, as it's own Wikipedia page cites "It is one of the largest and most prestigious film collections in the world." The Museum of London collections policy clearly demonstrates the strict criteria it has for taking things into the collection and again is large, as it has items collected from 2,000 years ago.

I know both collection policies have been published on other pages, which I'm sure HouseOfChange would have read, but shall I publish them here again?

This is a list of Wikipedia's National Film Archives and the Library of Gongress sub-section film list is included in it. Though as the selection for the Library of Congress is driven by public vote, I would suggest it shouldn't be, as it wouldn't be deemed a curated archive, rather a populist collection?

I notice Amanda Paul declared her connection to Atherton on Ballet of Change in her discussions with Tokyogirl79/Reader Of The Pack on the Talk Page of Our London Lives. I'm unclear of what else should have happened in that situation, could you please let me know? Itsallnewtome (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the films' inclusion in those collections is a significant fact about Atherton, but WP:NFO #4 for films specifies selection by "a national archive." The benchmark they give is the US National Film Archive where 25 films each year are selected as worthy of preservation. Members of the public can nominate up to 50 films per year but only 25 are selected each year. It seems unlikely that one of Atherton's films would have been selected by a British organization as one of the top 25 films of its year. HouseOfChange (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange As I just pointed out, the example given by Wikipedia is NOT a National Film Archive, it is a public voted selection in the Libray of Congress and therefore not comparable to anything else in the world. It doesn't use the word Arhcive in its title. It's listed as the National Film Registry and as it's decided by public vote, this will mean that the ownus on selection, is on poularity and fame which Wikiedia clearly states is a secondary concern when it comes to Notabiltiy Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy gives the National Film Registry as an example of the level of selectivity required for other "national" archive to meet that benchmark. Its 25 films each year are selected by the US Library of Congress, not by a public vote. Not one of Atherton's films comes close to that level. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) might be the place to propose that WP:NFO should be changed to include all the BFI's 100,000 films "acquired mainly by donation." HouseOfChange (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange using your same logic, the only films that could be considered notable in the world are the 750 held in America, as no other National Archive, has a public vote (nomination system). If Wikipedia didn't want the gauge to be an admission into a National Film Archive then it shouldn't have listed that as criteria. But it clearly states "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive", not conditional on the size of the archive. Using an example that isn't a National Film Archive is oxymoronic. The selection made by Congress is based on public nominations "The Librarian of Congress makes the annual selections to the Registry after reviewing thousands of titles nominated by the public". So they are only collecting films that the public deem are popular to Americans, so my previous argument about popularity and fame holds. It means that the consideration of artistic or cultural merit is completely removed from the selection process. And do remember that 100,000 items in the BFI isn't all film, it's television programmes, posters, programs and micellanea related to film. And I think you misunderstood what "acquired mainly by donation" means, it's just that the BFI avoid paying for their collection (some old films have to purchased from Private Collections, but if selected, most modern film makers would want to donate their films to the BFI collection).

But, let me remind you of the BFI Collections Policy for the moving image:

• An extract from the British Film Archive Collecting Policy to be found as a Download

4.2 Cultural significance

25. The overriding criterion for acceptance into the national collection of moving image material for the United Kingdom is that the work should be of cultural and/or historical importance to the British people, recognising the diversity of British communities.

26. Because this is the national collection of moving image material in the UK, acquisition of British-produced and British-related material will be prioritised over non-British material, especially for the preservation collection. However, much non-British material is also of cultural importance and some non-British material may be highly relevant to particular cross-cultural audiences for the reference collection.

27. The bfi does not aim to hold a comprehensive collection, even for British- produced material. It aims to collect works that have or had real cultural impact, or historical significance, or that are highly representative of production, society or cultural values, or which are valuable for educational purposes or as information resources for study. Examples include: - High quality productions, where the production values and treatment are of a high artistic merit or information content.Itsallnewtome (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome This page exists to discuss improvements to the Paul Atherton bio. There are four AfDs, linked to above, concerning films made by Atherton, which you might want to address with your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange as this goes to the argument of notability for this article, surely it is essential to be addressed here too (I'm not sure I'll have time to worry about those other articles)? Itsallnewtome (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Atherton began his TV career..."

From the only source cited about Atherton's start in the film industry: "One lucky individual was offered a work experience placement at the skillsformedia ‘Lucky Break’ session at this year’s Production Show. Nick Thorogood, Channel Editor on UK Food and UK Style, offered Paul Atherton four-weeks work experience, possibly leading to a job as a researcher...Paul was recently made redundant from the PR industry but is now looking for a career change and eventually wants to be a producer." Just one more example of this article claiming far more about Atherton than any RS support. (Skillset was a charity branch of the UK Film Council aimed at broadening access to film careers; here is an example of a "lucky break" session they offered in 2003.) HouseOfChange (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange Surely work experience is the start of someone's career and he clearly became a television producer, so a little unlclear what the issue is here?Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome My issue was with what the article previously said: "His television career began at Prospect Pictures, working on their live five-day-a-week cookery programme Good Food Live." This wording implied more than a "lucky" four-week apprenticeship, and the only source cited does not support the specifics claimed. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange Again, that's a factually accurate statement. The issue then becomes about semantics and not accuracy. I'm totally prepared, as a newcomer to Wikipedia, to acknowledge, that tone, as well as facts may come into play here. But you claimed that the RS didn't support the facts and it clearly does. The RS states, that this was Atheron's first job since leaving Public Relations & that he worked for Good Food Live for a month (regardless of what may have happened atferwards). So that's why I'm struggling to understand the point? How his position came about, under what terms and the duration of it, is surely irrelevant? Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome The RS does not say Atherton "worked for Good Food Live for a month." It says he was "offered..a four-weeks work experience, possibly leading to a job as a researcher." The RS mentions neither "Prospect Pictures" nor "Good Food Live." These are matters of fact, not "semantics" or "tone."

The previous wording inflated his charity four-week apprenticeship into "working on a live five-day a week cookery show." The clear implication was that Atherton's "working" there was what one normally expects of someone with a job--that he was employed there in a regular paying job of the kind that one earns after spending the time to learn how to do that job. "How his position came about, under what terms and the duration of it" is entirely relevant to the question of Atherton's training and experience as a filmmaker prior to setting up his own company in 2004. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange I don't want to get into a semantic argument, but just for clarity in this case I think it will help as I progress with the article to understand what's acceptable to wikipedia editors. It is an accepted norm that anyone entering the television or film industry begin their career by garnering work experience usually as a runner. This was usually unpaid although in recent years is more likely to be, but is undeniably work, hence the term "work experience". I do see your point that there's no mention of Good Food Live or Prospect Pictures in the RS however. but one would argue (certainly fifteen years ago) that nearly everyone starts their career in media working for free and that, that experience would be by definition the start of their career? As yet, I haven't been able to find an RS that states that Atherton worked for Good Food Live, but have that Nick Thorogood commmissioned Good Food Live from Prospect Pictures here. Thanks for the clarity. Itsallnewtome (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Itsallnewtome What is your point here? Please suggest some wording you prefer to what is in the article now. HouseOfChange (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Two films Atherton directed, merged here after AfD

The articles (Ballet of Change and Our London Lives) were merged into this article because both failed WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") and their inclusion in the collections of BFI (Ballet of Change) and the Museum of London (OLL) did not meet the high standard set by NFO #4.

While trying to integrate the new material into this article, I noticed many dead links, mostly being used to support not-very-important material. Deadlinks to announcements on Twitter or elsewhere that OLL would be shown at Museum on London don't add much value to the article when it is not in dispute that OLL was indeed shown there.

I also repaired some broken links.[1]

I also removed some claims that were not cited to any source, or that were not supported by a source cited for them, e.g. "Each film tells the history of its location using imagery and music. Taking as its starting point the earliest image available from museum and other archives (usually a drawing circa 16th Century) and then dancing with the imagery (hence the title of the piece) from oil paintings, through photographs to High Definition Video in Present day."[2] and "During each visit the pair would visit various venues, which included restaurants, galleries, museums, cinema, theatre and experience walks and events. Examples of places visited include viewing a performance of Jemima Puddle Duck at the Unicorn Theatre, dining at Dinner by Heston Blumenthal and taking in the views from the Shangri-La Hotel in The Shard. The documentary also includes footage of Atherton and his son taking part in the campaign to save the Odeon Cinema in Kensington."[3]

The policy justification for removing these uncited claims is WP:PROMO "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Biographical Referencing

@HouseOfChange: has advised me that I ask the quesstions I'd originally directed at him & @4meter4: on my User_talk:Itsallnewtome talk page to here, for what I believe, it is hoped, that it should generate a wider discussion.

Now it has been accepted that Atherton is notable (I am curious, as HoueOfChange has pretty much now rewritten this entire article with very minor contributions from myself, why the COI & Third Party Tags remain, could someone please explain)?

1. @HouseOfChange: has made some siginificant amendments to the page that I'm sturggling to understand in terms of referencing. For instance the funding for The Ballet of Change was listed on the National Lottery Heritage Fund website up until a few weeks ago. It was an accurate reference that was clearly visible to everyone involved since my arrival here. However the link is now dead. I don't know if House of Change checked it on the Webarchive or not (I believe you have to wait 24 months to see if it's been archived "As a result, editors should wait ~24 months after the link is first tagged as dead before declaring that no web archive exists."), but the WP:DEADREF on wikipedia also says

"Sometimes, finding an appropriate source is not possible, or would require more extensive research techniques, such as a visit to a library or the use of a subscription-based database. If that is the case, consider consulting with Wikipedia editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, the Wikipedia:Village pump, or Wikipedia:Help desk. Also, consider contacting experts or other interested editors at a relevant WikiProject."

Which I don't believe he has undertaken, rather, simply taking it upon himself to just delete everything, with out seemingly any further invetigations. This seems in stark contrast to what Wikipedia policy advises, be grateful of some guidance on the best way to address that, and what evidence an editor needs to provide to comply with that requirement, if any?

2. There are references made to the exhibition for Our London Lives, that would have only been accessible during the show's duration but would no longer exist today. How do you deal with that sort of referencing? (I believe an editor made attempts to find a convenience link to a Museum of London Twitter post to validate it, but again HouseOfChange dismissed this, even though it seemed to comply entirely with WP:Twitter?

3. As the films are themselves reference points, how much description can you take from viewing them? For instance a watch of Our London Lives lets you describe in full what's happened and what's contained within it, but do you have to find someone else who has watched it and described it in print or can you simply do so as an editor, giving the film itself as a reference source within your descriptions, with appropriate time codes?

4. I'm beginning to pull in loads of coverage from The British Newspaper Archive & Cathays Library (which holds the Welsh Newspaper Achive) about his time running A Touch of Silk, an abseil he did to raise funds for Barnardos when he was in University, that ran over three days of Western Mail coverage. I've also located coverage in The Publican about his time running pubs in Cardiff, PR Week about his various PR Careers in London. Most of which were cited on his page, but no longer available online or never were (as they predate the internet's existence), but were removed because they were deadlinks or no links So be grateful to know precisely how I should go about re-addressing this?

5. One last question, there is much information about Atherton's life and circumstances contained within the Judgement he acquired from the Royal Courts of Justice in February of this year 2019 (It's still unclear why that Judgement isn't considered Ratio decidendi as a previous editor suggested by the way?) can that information then be used and the judgement used as a reference, as it's submitted and accepted as an absolute truth by the courts?

As Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self published source permits the use of all sorts of references from Facebook to Twitter, I would have thought, evidence sworn under oath would carry far more weight.

• ""Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

"WP:SOCIALMEDIA" redirects here. For the policy on what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. "WP:TWITTER" redirects here. For the external links essay, see WP:Twitter-EL. Policy shortcuts WP:ABOUTSELF WP:TWITTER WP:SOCIALMEDIA WP:REDDIT Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook."

Take for instance, the Youtube recording of the speech Atherton gave at the House Of Commons in respect to Bob Blackman and the Homelessness Reduction Bill 2016-17, it was seemingly supplied, simply as an evidenced reference that Atherton had delivered the speech and the subject it was on. The video clearly evidenced both, so why wasn't it deemed acceptable as a reference?

Or another, the video recording of him performing in the London 2012 Olympic Games Closing Ceremony, which was also supported by his credit for the role in the LOCOG official programme for the event, according to the citations? Again, I can't see why that isn't acceptable as an evidential reference of the claim?

Appreciate the guidance Itsallnewtome (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Itsallnewtome: as per WP:PROMO "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." That is because article topics must be not only true, but also OF INTEREST to independent third-party sources. Hundreds of people danced at the Olympics as volunteers. It didn't interest anybody but Paul Atherton that Paul Atherton was among them. For something to go into a Wikipedia article, it needs more than "evidence" that it occurred. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."

Consider Wikipedia's description of some non-notable films by another British filmmaker in the article Sarmad Masud. Adha Cup (2009) and Two Dosas (2014) get short summaries based on reports in RS. A Wikipedia article is an encyclopedia article; it is very different from a detailed human-interest profile in New Yorker magazine. It is "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."

There is also a question of WP:WEIGHT--the article should primarily concern the reason for the person's notability, but additional details may be included if they are sourced to WP:RS and in balance with the amount of text on the main subject. Consider Sukumar (director), which is a Wikipedia "good article" about a filmmaker. It has only three paragraphs about his personal life, followed by much more text about his career, his films, etc. Many more facts about his personal life could probably be found in RS, but they are not in the article because the article is about him as a notable FILMMAKER. I hope this is informative and helpful. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: I did ask you five questions above, I don't think you've managed to answer one, so I'm concluding you're not comprehending my argument. So let's try and deal with as one issue at a time. Let's start with Atherton's video diary being taken into the Museum of London. That clearly took place because the Museum was interested in the example of his life. It's the composite of his experiences that made him a good example to be currently the only one included in the collection in that particular medium. The film itself wasn't the object that was collected but the life it represented.

I've always argued here, that it is the composite of his experiences that makes him notable as per WP:PEOPLE and that whilst others focus on film-making, I've argued that the press coverage he's received for other things in his life is far greater, in composite, than what he's received for his profession. His experiences with the DWP is what constitues nearly a chapter about him in Dr. France's Ryan's book and two articles in Private Eye for example, his fund raising activities at University with his Abseil attempt down Southgate House in Cardiff to raise funds for Barnardos warranted three consecutive days worth of substantial press covergae (I've not added that coverage, as I'm waiting for the archive to send me printed copies of the material and to confirm here, that it is accpetable to be added) or an eighth of the two hour Channel 4 documentary The Great Black British Invasion, focussed on his experiences of racism whilst growing up in South Wales. His lingerie gift delivery company A Touch of Silk, got far more press coverage including numerous press articles in Western Mail, BBC Radio & ITN than seemingly anything else he did in his life and his Homelessness consituted an article in The Big Issue and numerous appearances on London Live News, than did his films.

As I understand it from @4meter4: Notability was established for Atherton by him having two works collected into recognised collections, but "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

However Wikipedia also states notability can be established by multiple sources and that is where my contention lies.

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]"

As I said, I've always made a case that I wanted to establish notability on his life and not his work, under the banner of him being interesting AND unusual enough to warrant significant coverage of various aspects of his ilfe.

"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

So is it possible to base notability on his life and not his work? Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The question of whether to "base notability on his life" was discussed at several AfDs for this article. The consensus was that public interest in his life did not rise to the level of WP:GNG, but he would be considered notable due to (barely) passing WP:FILMMAKER #4 "The person's work (or works) has: .. (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Atherton's life has NOT received "significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources" as required by GNG. He has received multiple brief published mentions in connection to several different topics where he sought publicity--but that's not GNG. He has himself written at length about himself, and talked at length about himself in some short interviews. Not one of his public mentions is in-depth enough for GNG -- which requires not one but "multiple independent" sources showing "significant" interest in a topic.

In reply to your questions above 1) the National Lottery funding was mentioned in the BFI record we already cited; the deadlink was redundant 2) If you can cite a reliable third-party source for useful information, please add it, whether it is online or offline. 3) WP:NOR requires "reliable published sources" for information. 4) If you have sourced, encyclopedic material why not add it so others can decide if it meets Wikipedia policy including WP:WEIGHT? 5) WP:BLPPRIMARY "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." HouseOfChange (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: 1. Before I continue, can I ask do you have any kind of relationship with Atherton? You appear to have an insight to the workings of his mind that could only come from someone who knows him e.g. where you say "where he sought publicity".

2. There has been no concesus amongst any of the AFD's on this article. I was about to put it forward again myself but @4meter4: removed the Notability tag, and thus my neccisity to do so.

3. Of the 38 references currently attached to the article, I haven't found a single one where Atherton's promoting anything (there was an interview about his Video Diary being taken into the Museum of London but that wouldn't be considered promotion, that was just news). Could you point out the references you think this is happening with please? As far as I can see he's talked about Adoption, Race, Homelessness & Welfare and all the coverage around him has been in relation to one of those subjects when in respect to his personal life.

4. I'm struggling to understand why you would consider a half page article in a magazine (The Big Issue - Homelessness]], nearly ten minutes of time in a two hour documentary on a national television channel (The Great British Black Invasion - Race) a dedicated 5 minute slot on that same channel (4thought.tv - Fostering & Adoption) and a near chapter in a book (Crippled: Austerity and the Demonization of Disabled People pp. 129 -137 - Welfare) as "brief mentions" and not meeting WP:GNG, could you please provide some more detail to your thinking and why those things would not be considered in depth enough? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Itsallnewtome: 1) I have no connection to Atherton. 2,3,4) Please edit the article yourself, citing your information to RS. I have no interest in hypothetical arguments about material that is not in the article. The way to dispute edits by another editor is to make your own better edits, and see if they gain consensus support. 07:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: In respect to 2,3 & 4 there is nothing hypethetical The Big Issue & Crippled: Austerity and the Demonization of Disabled People pp. 129 -137 are both referenced in the article and YOU YOURSELF removed the Youtube link to the The Great British Black Invasion. I'm asking you to see where your thinking lay, rather than getting into a war with me simply reversing your edits. You are clearly the way more experienced editor here, so one would expect better clarity from you, than me, who is only just about coming to terms with the interface?Itsallnewtome (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

* Does Frances Ryan establish notability? No. Using Google books, you can read quite a bit of the text of Ryan's book. It includes a story about "Paul" (the word "Atherton" does not occur in the book, either in the text or in the acknowledgements) running from about page 130 to page 137. Ryan's book makes no case that Atherton's life is notable in any way except as one of many examples of ways the government treats disabled people unfairly. The Guardian review of the book] calls it a book that includes "example after example," and mentions many of its case studies but not PA's.

* Does The Big Issue establish notability? No. The 8 paragraph story about Atherton is a feel-good oped about how Atherton triumphed over homelessness. It is not a fact-checked news article, but is apparently based entirely on what Atherton said about himself. Again, this is a case of using Atherton's story to make a point about the publication's real subject of interest, the possibility to rise up from homelessness.

* Does The Great British Black Invasion establish notability? No. YouTube is not in general considered RS. The link you give does not mention "Paul Atherton", so it is hard to believe his life was a major point of interest in the show. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: have you evidence that the story covered in the The Big Issue wasn't fact checked? It would seem dangerous for a publication of this ilk not to do so about someone who was/is Homeless or is that simply guesswork on your part? And out of curiousity why do you write so oddly about press space, I said it was a half page article, which it is, you then try and imply it isn't by referring to it as 8 paragrpahs long and in doing so make no mention of the photograph that fills up the remaining piece of the column. That seems disingenuous and underhand and doesn't read as if you are acting without bias? Are you sure you don't know Atherton and have some beef with him?

Atheron was at Frances Ryan's London book launch with her as a video link (already cited in the article) and clearly states he is the Paul in the Housing Chapter and still homeless, I could find no other Paul (all named examples were absent of their surnames - probably for privacy reasons), could you? That Paul is indeed not mentioned in the Guardian's review of the book, would have no impact on the RS, which is the book itself. So again, do you have any evidence suggesting the story wasn't fact checked? Or is that simply an assumption on your part? Ryan is recognised as an award nominated specialist Journalist and I don't know why you would consider the writing as anything other than a factual piece of research?

Often the BBC and Channel 4 would utilise their own YouTube channels to promote their content. Surely it's the content provider (in this case Juniper Productions delivering to Channel 4) that has to abide by RS and not the platform from which it is delivered? If you'd bothered to watch the programme, Atherton is clearly one of the Icons on the site, where as most people named on that page do not appear as an Icon (The icon are the main charcaters the documentary focuses on and it is their stories that drive the whole piece, Atherton concludes the programme as the example examining the impact of mixed race children on British Society - he's the Icon with long coat hat & scarf, that's easily comparable with his Profile Photo on thia article). But again, you're drawing conclusions from things not in evidence (having not watched the entire programme - it is available in archives) which seems odd from someone who says they are cconcerned with the facts. In truth, surely, as someone who is concerned about encyclopeadic excellence, you would have done all this research first, not started now, in the hope of using it in retaliation to something you seemingly don't like and you've not made any reference to 4thought.tv at all, any reason? And what are you deeming to be "notable" in this context that the selection of his story doesn't match? As I understand it, Notability is established by the repeated selection by a journalist, commissioner, author or documentarist to chose that subject (in this case Atherton) over the potential of millions available. Not that the story in itself had to establish notability? Those named in TGBBI are famous celebrities (a secondary critieria for notability on wikipedia), Atherton is merely notable by his combined experience

But my quetion, was why do you see these pieces as "Brief Mentions", the answer was clearly, because you hadn't done the research.

Itsallnewtome (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Itsallnewtome: My opinion is that three examples of coverage you mention don't add up to GNG -- evidence of "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as required by our Notability guideline. There doesn't seem much point in replying to your long, elaborate questions and accusations. The talk page is for discussing the article and how to improve it. My advice to you is to improve the article yourself and see if a general consensus supports you. For example, if you believe 4thought.tv is an example of significant public interest in Atherton, why not create an appropriate sentence or two for the article about it, including a link or two to some RS? HouseOfChange (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)HouseOfChange (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Improving the article with external links?

@Itsallnewtome: has suggested that material useful for this article is available on YouTube, having been posted there by organizations such as the BBC. To quote WP:VIDEOLINK "Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission."

Another type of acceptable external link is an "official page" for the article topic. Is there an official website for Paul Atherton? His Twitter account is active but seems to fail test #2 of WP:ELOFFICIAL for an official site, "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." HouseOfChange (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

COI & Third Party

I had removed the COI & Third Party tags on this article following extensive editing of the piece by @HouseOfChange: & @MarioGom: and minor editing by @Girth Summit:, @Bbb23: & myself in addition to having the notability of the subject verified by @4meter4:. I did this on the grounds that the references no longer pointed to self published sources by Atherton and that the Third Party (which was never named but I took to be @Amanda Paul: from the talk page discussions) seemingly had made no fruther contributions and the page no longer resembled anything like it's previous incarnation that was mainly driven by its creator 11 years ago.

Of the 39 references currently listed on the article:

8 - refer to National Archive or Museum's that Atherton's work has been collected in.

1 - Film review

5 - National newspaper articles about Atherton's life

5 - National Newspapers & online publications referencing his own work as a journalist

2 - Nationwide television appearances (one in respect to his work, one in respect to his life)

4 - Trade Publications (referring to his work Silent Voices, The Ballet of Change & the birth of his career)

1 - Book referencing Atherton's life (battles with his illness and the UK state)

4 - Nationwide Magazine publications (again referencing Atheron's career, A Touch of Silk & sturggles with Housing & the Department of Work & Pensions).

1 - As a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts

2 - Radio intevirews about his work (Colour Blind & Our London Lives)

2 - Film Fesitval (Selection for Colour Blind & Judging)

4 - London publications (2 in respect to his life campaigning, 2 in respect to his work)

However @Duffbeerforme: decided to reverse my edit with no explanation of why. I have again removed it in good faith and would appreciate knowing the reasons for reversing it, should anyone chose to do so? Itsallnewtome (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have requested a discussion at the COI noticeboard of whether or not it is appropriate that @Itsallnewtome: has now removed the COI tag from this article four times [4] [5][6][7] Here is the link for anybody who wishes to comment: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Paul_Atherton. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Paul Atherton at Cleopatra's Needle - photograph taken by Darren Fletcher.jpg
• The Ballet of Change- Piccadilly Circus, London.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Ballet of Change- Piccadilly Circus, London.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

An image file used on this page is currently under discussion

While doing general cleanup of this article, I realized that Amanda Paul aka "Amanda Paul~commonswiki" had uploaded as "own work" multiple Atherton-related images that were in fact created by other people. (Often specifying the photographer's name, which shows good intentions but doesn't meet our policy for "own work.") At Commons, someone identifying as Paul Atherton has stepped in to say that he has a right to upload images given to him by other people; admin has told him he needs written permission from each photographer.[8]

In 2009, the en-wiki "Amanda Paul" uploaded two images from the set of the film Colour Blind with identical EXIF data, one attributed to "Pui San Chan", the film's official still photographer and the other not--both claimed as AP's "own work." The one explicitly described as the work of the set photographer has been deleted, the other from the same camera is under discussion. Participate in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2019_December_19#File:Robert_Cavanah_in_Golliwog_Make-up_-_Colour_Blind_2009.jpg. Hard to see why this article about a film's producer needs to showcase a photo of a white man in minstrel-show blackface. Atherton was not the film's writer, director or makeup artist. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul Atherton Heathrow Homeless

Extended content

@HouseOfChange: I was rather hoping a Wikipedian would notice that you've cited numerous things not in evidence, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen, so thought would assist. You've drawn a conclusion that Atherton left the Airport and then returned, this is not reported anywhere. It merely states the people who were Homeless there, were under the threat of eviction, not that that actually took place. The Guardian article on Friday 27th March 2020 States: Paul Atherton Quoted in – Councils Told to House All Rough Sleepers In England By Weekend – The Guardian – By Amelia Gentleman - 27th March 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/councils-told-to-house-all-rough-sleepers-in-england-by-weekend "Rough sleepers at Heathrow airport were told to move out on Thursday. Paul Atherton, a filmmaker who has been homeless for a number of years and who this week has been sleeping at Terminal 5, said dozens of homeless people had been told to move on, without clear instructions about where to go." Metro_(British_newspaper) article on the same day also states the same thing Paul Atherton in Metro Online – Homeless Man Living At Heathrow Airport Still Has Nowhere To Go – Elisa Menendez - Friday 27th March 2020 13:35. https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/27/homeless-man-living-heathrow-airport-still-nowhere-go-12465991/ "Paul Atherton, 52, has been homeless for 10 years and has been sleeping in Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 5 on and off for the last two. But as the building is cleared of non-essential staff and members of the public in a bid to combat the spread of Covid-19, he is now facing the dilemma of not having a roof over his head tonight." But on Monday 30th March 2020 The Guardian in a follow up article clearly shows nobody was removed; Paul Atherton Quoted for follow up article – Thousand of Rough Sleepers still Unhoused in England Say Charities – The Guardian - by Amelia Gentleman – Monday 30th March 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/thousands-of-rough-sleepers-still-unhoused-in-england-say-charities "About 60 people were still sleeping in Terminal 5 at Heathrow on Monday night, according to Paul Atherton, a film-maker who has been homeless for a number of years and who is currently sleeping at the airport. He said he had not been given any support from outreach workers or from local councils." In EachOther news - it clearly states he has been residing at the airport as part of his decade long years of being homeless and the reasons he selected Heathrow as safety. Paul Atherton interviewed in EachOther about Corona Virus at Heathrow by editor Aaron Walakandar ‘I Am Worried’: Coronavirus On Minds Of People Experiencing Homelessness https://eachother.org.uk/homelessness-coronavirus-stay-safe/ "Filmmaker Paul Atherton, 51, has been homeless for more than a decade. He currently spends his nights in Heathrow Terminal 5, drawn to its relative security and 24-hour-a-day food shop. He is one of the more than 283 people who were seen sleeping rough in the airport last year, according to data from the London Mayor’s office." The Mirror Newspaper confirms that he celebrated his Birthday on the 20th March 2020 but seemingly get's his aga wrong. Paul Atherton Quoted in the Daily Mirror Newspaper – both in print & online - 20th March 2020 by Ros Wynne-Jones (Real Britain Ros) https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/big-issue-magazine-facing-fight-21724450 "Today is one of the most uncertain days of Paul Atherton’s life – and also his 50th birthday." And that he suggests housing people in block booked Hotels and the cause of the problem was the citywide London lockdown. "But how can I self-isolate? And if they lock down the city where the hell will I go? The Government needs to block book empty hotels and house us, or trial Universal Basic Income.” The BBC reported that the Airport was cleared of most Homeless on Friday 3rd April Paul Atherton Article – Coronavirus:Heathrow Airport 'Sheltering 200 Homeless People' – BBC News England - Not bylined – Friday 3rd April 2020 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52151662 "the vast majority of rough sleepers who were previously sleeping in Heathrow Airport have been given offers of safe and suitable accommodation, and will continue working with them to ensure those who remain are also protected from the pandemic." In the Tortoise article it references both his recent photographic show & his play Fifty Years of Trying. Paul Atherton Profile Piece in – Isolation – Tortoise Media - Edited by David Taylor, written with Polly Curtis, Imy Harper & Louise Trickle. https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/04/06/unheard-voices-of-covid-19/content.html?sig=i-fZRwRvy5gYwNga8x8LAwPLu8NU4FGbxOd8TEc6rZE "He has MECFS, chronic fatigue syndrome, which leads to crashes in his health and has left him unable to reliably hold down a gig, even while he has managed to achieve an impressive cultural output in the past decade from photography exhibitions to talks." Photographic Exhibition - Paul Atherton's Greatest Londoners - Gallery@Oxo - Oxo Tower - Southbank - London - 5th - 9th February 2020 https://www.oxotower.co.uk/events/paul-athertons-greatest-londoners/ Atherton speaking to Newsflare about Paul Atherton's Greatest Londoners https://www.newsflare.com/video/338047/other/paul-atherton-talks-about-his-groundbreaking-exhibition-paul-athertons-greatest-londoners Talks Paul Atherton Talk - Mary O'Hara Book Launch of The Shame Game at the RSA - 27th February 2020 https://www.thersa.org/events/speakers/paul-atherton Play - Fifty Years of Trying - Camden People's Theatre - 16th March 2020 ""His life story sounds like a drama – and indeed, on the very day that all of the UK’s theatres were ordered closed, it did play out on stage, the last performance at the Camden People’s Theatre before Britain’s theatres went dark. Fifty Years of Trying was the autobiographical story of how Paul went from successful professional with a penthouse flat overlooking the Thames to sleeping out at Heathrow, after an intervening decade where he made his home in hostels and, for a couple of years, lived from his car." He narrated the show which ended with him picking up his bag and heading for Heathrow – just as he did in real life as the lockdown took hold." Fity Years of Trying at Camden People's Theatre - Big Bang Night https://www.cptheatre.co.uk/production/big-bang-sprint-2020-1/ Paul Atherton – talking about his play Fifty Years of Trying at Camden People's Theatre as the last play before the theatre closes. https://www.newsflare.com/video/344787/other/paul-atherton-talks-about-his-play-fifty-years-of-trying-and-how-his-play-is-the-last-to-be-shown-due-to-the-coronavirus Paul Atherton – Press Photos from Fifty Years Of Trying – Camden People's Theatre – on Shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/fifty-years-of-trying-play-press-night-london-uk-16-mar-2020-10585253e Paul Atherton – Press Photos from Fifty Years of Trying – Camden People's Theatre – on Beimages. https://www.beimages.net/latest/2020/03/16/'fifty_years_of_trying'_play_press_night,_london?filter=E As far as I can see nowhere in any of these publications does it use the word "complaining", he was merely stating what was happening as in MyLondon on the 3rd April 2020. Paul Atherton Article – 'We have nowhere else to go – we will die' warns rough sleeper as Heathrow Airport turns into an unofficial shelter for hundreds of homeless – My London - by Anahita Hossein-Pour – Friday 3rd April 2020 https://www.mylondon.news/news/local-news/we-nowhere-gowe-die-warns-18034970 "On Wednesday, April 1, Paul claims that Heathrow’s Travel Care team and charity Thames Reach offering hotel rooms was “complete chaos”, with no testing kits for Covid-19, the hotel booking line crashing and confusion over taxis accepting discounted bookings." In fact it was clear he was campaigning to get those people housed. "There was a level of hope that hotel rooms are on the horizon, but that’s gone silent. We’re stuck in this limbo. We’re not being listened to at all. There are a lot of homelessness organisations shouting at people to address this. But the government and the mayor’s office doesn’t seem to be listening." Paul is eloquent and funny, but he is furious at the paralysis which has gripped policymakers over how to make homeless people safe, not only in the time of the pandemic. "I am angry that there’s such disregard for people without homes – over the last 40 years. It’s not just street homelessness, all these voices have been ignored for decades. It seems like we are expendable." Which is attested by his Twitter profile. https://twitter.com/LondonersLondon I'm not sure the Socialist Worker counts as a reliable source but it was covered there too. Paul Atherton mentioned in article – Tories Abandon Homeless People Despite Promise to Give Shelter – Socialist Worker - Not bylined – Monday 30th March 2020 https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/49823/Tories+abandon+homeless+people+despite+promises+to+give+shelter Hope that helps. Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Welcome back. I will try to correct the facts in the article. I am not the only Wikipedian watching this article, as two different editors not-me intervened to remove unsourced negative remarks by an IP about Atherton. To say that Atherton is complaining about the services on order seems accurate. Perhaps he is campaigning to help others. Perhaps he is exploiting a widespread tragedy to get publicity for himself. Perhaps both these things are true. Whatever his motivation, we can't put our guesses into the article, only the facts as RS report them. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC) I've removed the material on his homelessness, because it is not central to his very weak notability as a filmmaker. Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, we are not here to report on peripheral life issues of a subject unless they are very notable: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Read through the rest of WP:BLP and you will see that the point of Wikipedia is not to slag people of minor notability by reporting on this kind of thing. It's basically defamatory material sourced by a few weak mentions. He is just not that notable. The material also serves no encyclopedic value. Feel free to revert, but I might take it to WP:BLPN if so.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC) I could have summed up the above with "His homelessness issues are not related to the subject of his notability, i.e. filmmaking. Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE they should not be included."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC) :@ThatMontrealIP: I don't think Atherton considers it defamatory to report his homelessness; he uses it as central material in his approaches to news media, a play he apparently wrote about himself, etc. @Itsallnewtome:, none of the Atherton productions you mention have any RS notice--stuff Atherton posts about himself and notices from venues that events will happen there do not constitute evidence of public interest. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC) @HouseOfChange:@ThatMontrealIP: Atherton is clearly a campaigning filmmaker. Nothing he is notable for is for commecial ends. Therefore all applicable norms in respect to commerical filmmakers cannot be applied here. That said House, Montreal raised an interesting point that seems to contest your Public Interest argument about Atherton's works. He suggests Atherton is NotAPublicFigure however by every measure of what that means, he clearly is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual specifically take note of "High-profile: Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee." The Heathrow Homeless would certainly meet that criteria. And then "Appearances and performances High-profile: Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage. May have produced publications (books, DVDs, etc.) or events that at least in part are designed (successfully or not) to self-promote and to attract favorable public attention." Take heed of the term Succesful or Not. The play (Fifty Years of Trying) & the photographic exhibition (Paul Atherton's Greatest Londoners) were clearly both campaigning and sought to garner press attention (which they garnered in retrospect in respect to the Heathrow Homeless articles) and why your argument of public interest can't apply to his works. Be interested to get your take on it? Itsallnewtome (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Many past discussions on this subject have shown you to not be an objective source of information in the endless debate of this non-notable subject. 100% of your 150 or so edits since October 2019 have been about Paul Atherton. Nobody but the subject or someone very close to them pushes such a non-notable subject for so long. But feel free to prattle on as long as you like, the bytes are free. While you do so, WP:BLP applies and there is no reason to include information about his homelessness, or other minor trials, achievements and trivial items unrelated to his weak notability as a filmmaker. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC) That didn't address a single point I raised did it @ThatMontrealIP:? So instead of throwing insults and unsubstantiated claims - I didn't make this most recent Edit about the Homelessness - @HouseOfChange: did. I was merely providing them with the information to correct an assertion they made that was not in evidence. I made no edits. Your making assertions based on nothing but your personal feelings. That is what is called subjective. I've presented accurate facts based on both Wikipedia policy and press coverage - objective. Notability for the subject has already been accepted. Are you able to contest anything I've presented above in any kind of reasoned manner? Itsallnewtome (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC) I didn't insult you in the least. I just pointed out that you are only here to tiresomely push Paul Atherton subjects, which your edit history amply illustrates.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Seeing as I made that my objective and made it publicly known to all, you're not telling anyone anything they don't already know. Though why you consider facts and reasoned argument tiresome is beyond me. Of the 645 wikipedians in London (most of whom are no longer active) well over half focussed on a singular subect and most of those were interested in things not well publicised. But do you have any reasoned contestations against what I have just presented from Wikipedia Policy @ThatMontrealIP:? Itsallnewtome (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC) (rebegin indents) I agree with ThatMontrealIP on many points and share a wish that Itsallnewtome would stick to 1) improvements for the article and 2) arguments based on policy rather than insults or armwaving. Although WP:LPI is explanatory rather than policy, this sentence seems to fit Atherton very well: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Therefore I think that news stories that mention Atherton in connection with his complaints about government treatment due to his homelessness (which may be but need not be entirely self-serving, that isn't up to us to judge) should be briefly referenced in the article. (All the news stories I have seen about this refer to him speaking as a homeless person, not as a homeless campaigner.) If Atherton could expand beyond whining (or boasting) about himself, he might inspire more public interest. Meanwhile, his recent activities did get some mentions. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC) WP:BLP is the correct policy. The homeless stuff is not relevant. The only reason we keep talking about this extremely marginal subject is that our single purpose editor itsallmnewtome insists on wasting valuable editor time on it. Paul Atherton is only marginally more important to the world than my local grocer.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC) @HouseOfChange: 1) What here hasn't been about improving the article? 2) Who and how have I insulted anyone? Did you watch the video of the London Book Launch of author Mary O'Hara's book The Shame Game (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/an-american-tradition-shaming-the-poor/2020/03/13/6ca1c226-42da-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html) where Atherton was invited to speak? This gives a great explanation of the tactics that campaigners are using to tell the stories that the press won't, in order to change the media narrative about poverty shaming. Your latter subjective opinion about boasting, whining or complaining (none of which is evidenced) is clearly not encyclopaedic. Words akin to reporting would be more appropriate in this case - as the answers are clearly in response to journalistic questioning. @ThatMontrealIP: Whilst you keep citing your subjective opinion, you've not supported it with evidence, once. Nobody asked you to be engaged, that's something you yourself decided to intervene in, without prompt in this case. If you feel it's a waste of your time, then I'd focus it on something which is more worthy of your efforts. Atherton's notability is established. HouseOfChanges addition was in respect to greater news coverage to draw attention to the issues of Housing the Homeless during the London Covid19 Lockdown which as they state above, should be referenced. I merely provided citations and suggested a correction to their tone in their original edit. As previously requested by you both, I didn't edit the article myself to do so Itsallnewtome (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Striking my sentence about whining and boasting (which referenced Atherton's play, not his replies to journalists) because it was off-topic from the issue of improving the bio. As for the issue of whether or not to mention recent news stories quoting Atherton on British treatment of the homeless -- @Itsallnewtome: wants this in the article; @ThatMontrealIP: wants it out for BLP reasons. I don't feel strongly either way, so let's leave it out unless other editors chime in. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC) @HouseOfChange:Why make an edit you aren't prepared to support? And equally, why defend rhetoric over evidence? Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Dear @HouseOfChange:, disappointed not to hear your explanations to the above questions. But the coverage has now reached Spain and there's been further UK coverage. References below. Paul Atherton Interviewed – I'm Terrified of Going Back Onto the Streets: Coronavirus Shows We Could End Street Homelessness If We Wanted To – NovaraMedia – by Hannah Green - https://novaramedia.com/2020/04/13/im-terrified-of-going-back-onto-the-streets-coronavirus-shows-we-could-end-street-homelessness-if-we-wanted-to/ Paul Atherton – Article – Homelessness and Covid19: The Reality Behind The Promises - Transforming Society – Bristol University Press/Policy Press -http://www.transformingsociety.co.uk/2020/04/20/homelessness-and-covid-19-the-reality-behind-the-promises/ Spanish Publications Paul Atherton interviewed - The Confinement Of The Homeless, An Opportunity To Achieve A Home – Eldiario – written by Cristina Alonso – Monday 20th April 2020. https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/confinamiento-techo-oportunidad-lograr-hogar_0_1018748671.html Paul Atherton interviewed – EFE - written by Cristina Alonso – Monday 20th April 2020 https://www.efe.com/efe/espana/destacada/el-confinamiento-de-los-sin-techo-una-oportunidad-para-lograr-un-hogar/10011-4225882 Itsallnewtome (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC) The BLP objection raised by ThatMontrealIP is that Atherton's homelessness is unrelated to his notability. If you disagree, you could seek guidance at the BLP noticeboard. None of the four URLs Itsallnewtome mentions is in-depth about Atherton. There is one Spanish publication not two (at two URLS), which includes a brief interview with Atherton in the context of homelessness -- as does the Hannah Green piece. The #HeathrowHomeless "campaign" where Atherton is "at the forefront" consists of Atherton tweeting and instagramming a hashtag. An article Atherton has written about himself for a blog also does not support GNG notability. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Hi @HouseOfChange: I'm providing you information, what you chose to do with it is clearly up to you as the single person dictating what goes on this article or not. But it would really help me to understand why you would make an edit that you then wouldn't defend - as the experienced Wikipedian here, why don't you take it to the BLP noticeboard, as you were the one that made it? Equally, coverage doesn't have to reach the level of notability, notability has been established - "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles" WP:NNC Therefore we're left with whether the information is Verifiable WP:V - which clearly it is, as nearly all the Secondary Sources are verifiable & reliable WP:RS from the likes of BBC News, Tortoise Media & The Guardian. And whether it is given Due Weight WP:Weight "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." which with this amount of coverage, there can be no doubt. It's super weird that he is getting so much coverage, trivial as it is, for sleeping in an airport. I mean, who cares? it's almost as if he has an agent somewhere pumping out press releases to try and get a Wikipedia page here. I would not be surprise if that was the case. it would take someone who was single mindedly devoted to promoting all things Atherton, someone with unceasing drive and persistence to get such trivial and minor information published. Hardly anything this guy has ever done is notable, but he seems to have no problem getting trivial coverage all over the place. Maybe he calls the papers directly and asks to be interviewed? Maybe he has a friend who helps push these baloney articles? I'm trying to think of another article where there is so much trivial coverage for such an incredibly unimportant person. It's pretty clear that the subject or someone working with him is a publicity hound. In any case the Heathrow stuff is peripheral to his notability per WP:BLP and should not be included. If Itsallnewtome wants to keep blabbing on about it and wasting other editor's time, it will be just one more piece of evidence of their WP:NOTHERE attitude (e.g. this) that we can use when it comes time to end that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC) There are two separate articles on two separate publications written by the Spanish Press agency journalist by the way, one in Print from the press agency itself, the other in Video form on an online news website i.e. one on Eldiario.es & the other from the source Press Agency EFE which is akin to Reuters - just for facts sake As previously evidenced. Atherton is a campaigning film-maker ergo anything in relation to campaigning is pertinent, but that's for you to argue - not me. Equally, whilst Atherton's Notability isn't in question, this is a biography, therefore it can be aruged that any aspect of his life that generates secondary verifibale evidence is worthy of note in either his history or personal section elsewise there would be little point in having Biographies at all. Just to remind you that Montreal suggested Atherton wasn't High Profile enough, I disputed that and evidenced from Wikipedia why WP:LPI, you agreed with me. Which makes his Notability argument null & void. He also suggests Atherton was only notable as a film-maker (Which has never been true) - because a Diary isn't a film, neither is his acceptance to the Royal Society of Arts So he's notable for three separate things and is clearly High Profile . @ThatMontrealIP: Why do you spend so much of your time spouting your unsupported subjective opinion and assumptions about someone you consider so insignificant, it makes no sense? Find some British (or specifically London based) Wikipedian editors, who understand our culture, the importance of our politics and can explain to you the notion of how social campaigning works in this country and I think you'll discover that your spurious opinions are utterly flawed. Because as for your question "who cares" about the subject of Homelessness? Here in the UK it's the general public at large, clearly the press and of course the politicians, which is why Atherton was invited to the House of Commons (that's in the Palace of Westminster, home of our Government, in case you didn't know) to speak to MP Bob Blackman to help in revising the Homelessness Reduction Bill 2016–17 at the time (an entry that was prevoiously on the article, that one or other of you has already removed). Where's the evidence to support YOUR claim, as mentioned, I haven't seen any? What we emphatically know about Atherton, of the 9.5 Million potential Londoners it was his life that was worthy of collecting as a video-diary into the Museum of London, five of his films that were worthy of saving in perpetuity into the world's most presitigoius Film Archive BFI and he himself was of course accpeted as a Fellow of the RSA (i'm guessing if your grocer has similar credentials he too, should have a Wikipedia page). We also know that what he does, he does for no commercial or financial benefit. So please, evidence your position? It is clear your personal bias is impacting on serious impartial objective debate here but that doesn't mean I'm not open to hear you from a well reasoned argument. But currently your saying things that are oxymoronic. On the one hand your saying Atherton isn't notable (which has already been established and is not in dispute WP:NNC) yet on another you're saying he has SO much influence & notierity that he can put pressure on his journalistic contacts and succeed in getting coverage on the BBC, The Guardian, Tortoise Media and even in the Foreign Press as a penniless homeless person. The two things can't possibly be true at the same time. Itsallnewtome (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Itsallnewtome I have left you a note on your talk page re single purpose editing and the appropriate arbitration comnittee decision. Pushing your viewpoint on one subject ceaselessly as a single purpose account is disruptive editing. In other words, stop wasting our time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC) One would hope your failure to evidence a single point you've raised throughout this entire discussion, you're subjective and unevidenced conclusions and your failure to make a single balanced arguement would be obvious to any sane, reasoned Wikipedian @ThatMontrealIP:. So by all means, let's have some new voices in the room.Itsallnewtome (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Stop wasting everyone's time. I have edited thousands of articles, I am not a single purpose promotional editor like you are.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC) I will not be bullied. If you have a counter argument to what I've presented, please provide it. Otherwise please stop commmenting. As I said on my Talk Page, I am launching a complaint against you. Itsallnewtome (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Paul Atherton - More recent press coverage - May 2020

Paul Atherton – Resonance FM – 30 Minute programme – Interviewed by the Southwark Group of Tenancy Organisations - 8th May 2020 – On Mixcloud https://www.mixcloud.com/Resonance/southwark-covid-a-housing-response-8-may-2020/

Paul Atherton – My World, now yours – Letters from Lockdown Series – Tortoise Media - Slow Journalism by Award Winning Journalists – Wedensday 13th May 2020. https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/05/13/members-letters-from-lockdown-paul-atherton-audio/content.html?sig=8pWLDm9yVCe36s4iUHsNZSl8JtUOGRt8YNvisxwD7I0

Paul Atherton - The other epidemic: how coronavirus triggered a surge in mental illness – New Statesman – by Emily Bootle - Wednesday 19th May 2020. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2020/05/other-epidemic-how-coronavirus-triggered-surge-mental-illness Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Itsallnewtome: The talk page discusses ways to improve the article. It is not a repository for material that does not qualify for inclusion in the article.

Not one of these three latest items is useful here. The first two provide no RS information. The New Statesman article is not ABOUT Atherton--it is about the interaction of COVID with mental illness. Atherton (who is Black in articles about race, adopted in articles about adoption, disabled in articles about disability, homeless in articles about homelessness) turns up briefly (starting in the 6th paragraph) of a New Statesmen article about mental illness based on a self-descrbed history of panic attacks and depression. None of this evanescent coverage over the years has established GNG notability as a representative of one of his multiple characteristics. And none of the interviews a few weeks ago (for articles about homelessness and COVID) resulted in wider or deeper interest in Atherton as a homeless advocate. And none of it relates to his notability -- as a filmmaker.

If you have material related to Atherton that can be used to improve the article, please bring it to the talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

style="color:inherit; border: solid 1px Silver; padding: 0.6em; background: var(--background-color-base, #fff);"

} As I've stated ad nauseum @HouseOfChange:, by Wikipedia standards, coverage inside the article doesn't need to meet the level of General Notability WP:GNG but applies WP:NNC "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it..The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles." The definition of Notability for people WP:BIO "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary." and clearly Atherton achieved that for WP:Creative With Notability established, as wikipedia states under WP:Basic "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Your argument that the information isn't related to Atherton as a Film Maker would only apply if he was known for a single thing. But Atherton's notbaility is established by the FIVE film works he has collected into a National Film Archive BFI, his diary being collected into the premanent collection of a Museum, Museum of London & his acceptance as a Fellow of the RSA But, as there's no question that this new, news coverage (since March 2020), is in depth and with nearly every article having Atherton's photo attached to it, then WP:Sigcov would apply "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." one wonders why it wouldn't reach the level of GNG anyway? The subject of the article is Atherton, not his films. Why would you consider Tortoise Media or Resonance FM unreliable sources? Even if you consider them primary rather than through a publication but self-published by Atherton , they should still be considered under WP:BLPSELFPUB "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources." As you rightly point out, all the submissions above and in the article to date support the fact that Atherton was fostered (NOT adopted), been affected by racial problems and is Homeless, yet there appears to be little or no mention in the article of these facts even though they clearly all come from more than one RS (in addition to Primary sources). As a social campaigning film-maker and this being a biography, anything that is related to him is surely relevant, if not applicable to his career either in the Early Life or Personal sections of the biogrpahy? So from evidence that he's been asked to lecture at Brunel University to writing for Bristol University to being requested to submit his input on a variety of subjects by Tortoise Media, these things should all be considered. As I've stated elswhere, as you are acting dicatatorially here as you've yet to engage other editors into the conversation, I'm merely showing good faith by bringing to your attention to the information I discover to extend the content of the article as I have been accused (not evidenced) of being a COI (on the basis that I've researched my subject in detail and only interested in this subject) and therefore can't edit the article myself. What you do with it, is clearly up to you. But anything that meets Wikipedia Guildines should surely be considered? i.e. Anything whether RS or Primary articles that include Atherton's contirbution, that can provide more detail and depth to the article about his life, should be published here.Itsallnewtome (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Paul Atherton talking about himself at Resonance FM, where "Absolutely anyone can broadcast" is not a source of RS information. Paul Atherton writing about himself does not become fact-checked RS because Tortoise Media publishes it in a collection of what are essentially "letters to the editor" written by paying members. And I call your attention to the provision concerning self-published material, "it is not unduly self-serving." Atherton's FRSA does not confer notability. Some people get FRSA for notable achievements. But not 30,000 people. "FRSA" is a fundraising tool of the RSA that many nonnotable people apply for and pay to receive. (E.g. this paedophile who got an FRSA but had to give it back when he got caught.) Looking back at the state of this Wikipedia article in 2018, full of WP:OR and WP:PROMO, it seems likely that Wikipedia's misrepresentation of Atherton's work was useful in getting him his 2018 FRSA. Atherton's notability rests ONLY on having films in two major collections. He is notable ONLY as a filmmaker, squeaking in only under WP:Creative 4d, with a generous allowance that two collections amount to "several." (The article has been AfD'ed 3 times, with the three results "No consensus", "Delete", and "No consensus.") Other editors are welcome to express an opinion. I am not being dictatorial by expressing my own. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC) @HouseOfChange: Pleased you acknowldege that Atherton is notable and therfore this debate is only about the content of the article. As I've just evidenced that the content of the article doesn't need to come from RS, I'm not sure why you would then bring that up again though, especially when you're not explaining why the content I provided shouldn't be considered under Wikipedia guidelines, which is the only real question here? There is clearly much confusion on Wikipedia in respect to the FRSA award (as has been disccussed here earlier), as it appears in the main to be recognised as an award here but no definitive decision has been made about it. If you want to challenge that thinking then you'd need to do that elsehwere as the talk-page of this subject is not for that debate. The man you cite who was convicted of paedophilia had also been awarded a CBE and the two are discussed in the article as having equal significance. Equally you're making assumptions not in evidence by saying what you think in respect to his participation to the RSA. It is clear from Atherton's work (from his very first production Silent Voices) that everything he's done is campaigning, not-for-profit and affecting social change and one would have thought easily evidenced for the acceptance of the FRSA. In your point you also put a lot of weight on how people perceive Wikipedia in the 21st Century (especially here in the UK, where it's no longer considered that useful, as not even our Quiz Shows would consider it accurate, it's one of reasons I was keen to edit this article as so few British wikipedians seem now to be doing any editing at all) but yet again you've not evidenced anything. But you also leave the question open to whether Atherton's appointment to the FRSA was a notable achievement - there's no evidence to the contrary? And the fact that the CEO of the organisation Matthew Taylor supported his Paul Atherton's Greatest Londoners Exhibition at Gallery@Oxo would suggest he may well have been. But as I say, there's no evidence either way, unless you have some that's not been pubilshed here? But what we definitely know is "Fellowship is only awarded to those who can demonstrate that they have made SIGNIFICANT contributions to social change, and support the mission of the RSA" Royal Society of Arts Again as I've stated ad nauseum a Diary is not a film - however it is recorded. The entry on the Museum of London cleary states the piece as a Video-Diary, this is not a film, but a recording of Atherton & his son's life experiences. It would be the same as suggesting a written diary is a book. There's a reason the texts are called by two different names. Taking actions that I can't challenge in a balanced way, is dicatatorial. You, as the expereinced wikipedian editor are the only peson to have made siesmic edits to the article. It is in essence just us two with an interest in this subject, therefore there's a power imbalance here that you're not attempting to reddress for encyclopaedic accuracy. I've noticed you've taken out images from the aticle that have been online for over a decade, so clearly not in Copyright breach, made subjective opinions about the content of the article with no support from any other editors, but make those edits anyway and when I challenge them, you use your power of experience and time here, to ignore them, mainly because so few editors are interested in this article (again the absence of British editors is a huge concern when looking at cultural understanding of a subject and its content accuracy) What have you addeed to this article? Everyone can see what you've taken away, but you can't speak about encyclopaedic accuracy or neutral point of view if your decision making is biased towards content removal. As for "unduly self serving" Atherton has spoken out about the Heathrow Homeless and succesfully assisted in getting them into emergency accomodation, Fund raised for grassroots Homeless Street Organisations, battled for those fighting against the DWP (Department for Work and Pensions}, assisted in attempting to change the media narrative about poverty, in fact, as you've already pointed out, no publicity Atherton has received is about him, he merely becomes the spokesperson for the subject, whether it's adoption/fostering, poverty, race or homelessness - so exactly what do you think is self-serving here and then what makes it "UNDULY" such?Itsallnewtome (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC) You are welcome to reach out to other editors -- to request more eyes on the article, or a broader decision about whether to add the material about Atherton's homeless advocacy, file a request at WP:BLP. To complain about my behavior, file a report at WP:ANI. In either case, you are more likely to get more help and more eyes on your request if you keep your remarks brief and focused on one point at a time. Because this article has had few eyes on it, over many years it became a perfect storm of amateur SYNTH and PROMO. I have been trying to bring it in line with Wikipedia policy for BLPs. Several photos you mention were uploaded by people who did not have the right to upload them as "Own work." I submitted the question of each photos to editors more experienced than I am for them to decide if they should stay or go. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC) OK @HouseOfChange: Let's address this one point at a time. Let's begin with my last question: "As for "unduly self serving" Atherton has spoken out about the Heathrow Homeless and succesfully assisted in getting them into emergency accomodation, Fund raised for grassroots Homeless Street Organisations, battled for those fighting against the DWP (Department for Work and Pensions}, assisted in attempting to change the media narrative about poverty, in fact, as you've already pointed out, no publicity Atherton has received is about him, he merely becomes the spokesperson for the subject, whether it's adoption/fostering, poverty, race or homelessness - so exactly what do you think is self-serving here and then what makes it "UNDULY such?"Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Until/unless RS start talking about Atherton as an advocate for homeless people other than himself, he will not be wiki-notable as an advocate for homeless people. Atherton's career of writing and talking about himself seems "unduly self-serving" in the context of his public record of seeking attention at every opportunity -- from Bumbum train to Olympics dancing, to his multiple "shows," his Instagram/Twitter, his latest hashtag "campaign" etc. etc. His claim to a reporter that he has panic attacks, etc. becomes much less credible in the context that the reporter was writing a story about COVID and mental illness, and if Atherton wanted to be interviewed and quoted he needed to claim some connection to the reporter's topic. The often-repeated story about how somebody's mistake ten years ago caused Atherton to become homeless (not clear how that event caused him to remain homeless for ten years even when receiving government benefits) is another example of Atherton's writing about himself being "unduly self-serving" and less than a credible RS about his history. I am a volunteer editor who is interested in building an encyclopedia. If you want to raise points for wider discussion, raise them at BLP or ANI, not by pinging me. I have wasted enough time over the past year responding to Gish gallop arguments. If you disagree with my editing, reach out to other editors for their opinion. 15:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC) That didn't address the question at all. In fact that is all pure speculation on your part without a single shred of evidence to support any of it, but even then, still not answering the question. If you're genuinely interested in encyclopaedic benefit - then clarity, research & facts are key. If you'd watched Atherton's speech for Mary O'Hara (cited above) then you'd already know the answer to the question about his decade plus of homelessness, you'd know it started as a Credtifle error (which is a systemic problem here in the UK), a variety of issues around DWP problems (which are all well known), legal trickery with Local Authorities (which is again well reported) and a journey through many Homeless initiatives here in London, that information is also replicated in the recording of him delivering this information to Bob Blackman in the House of Commons which all go to clearly prove you have no serious interest in this subject at all. You've raised RS again, which once more, has no relevance to this question either. The question was HOW was it self-serving and all you've done here is said "it is" with no evidence whatsoever of what it served and then not extended that, to how that leads it to being UNDULY such, the key adverb in the Wikipedia policy. From this, it's clear to any reader that you have no genuine interest in this subject at all and are just on Wikipedia to be a destuctionist (at least in this instance). The last time I reached out to another editor @4meter4: on my TalkPagefor assistance you claimed I was WP:Canvassing until they pulled you up for WP:Bite & to be WP:Civil That is not the beahviour of someone that looks for breadth, depth and understanding of a subject and is assisting other editors in improving an Encyclopaedic article. Itsallnewtome (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC) ((restart indent)) This is the article talk page, intended to discuss improvements to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Please stop contributing here unless you're going to engage in a productive & collaborative manner. As suggested by you I will reach out to other editors who can bring userful and reasoned debate to improve and conntribute to the article. Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit requests

Edit requests can help to improve articles, especially when they are simple and limited to one item at a time. From WP:COIREQ: “The best edit requests...

• are concise and to the point
• are worded neutrally
• include supporting sources, and a clear explanation of why the change must be made
• are not controversial or confrontational“ HouseOfChange (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

What happens when the edit isn't that of the COI but another Editor, as in the above case? In that instance, as is clear to all, the edit was HoC's, I (as the suggested COI) simply advised they correct it as it was factually inaccurate and I evidenced such with fifteen supporting sources. As you will read, I even asked HoC directly why they would make an edit that they then wouldn't defend, as it made no sense to me - but they provided no answer. So hoping other editors can assist. Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My intention above was to help Itsallnewtome formulate edit requests for this article. Another helpful practice would be to provide a sentence or paragraph that would be a useful addition to the article, or a useful replacement for a sentence or paragraph currently in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, other editors, as you'll read above this was proferred and indeed HoC said they would correct. The confusion in this instance came about because HoC reversed the entirety of their own edit, after I'd invested much time and effort correcting and then defending it for them. How do you resolve a situation like that? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please propose an edit you prefer to what is in the article. If you want to complain about me, take it to ANI and be sure to include lots of diffs rather than expecting people to wade through pages of history to figure out what you object to.

• 22:04, 2020 May 24 HouseOfChange ‎ 13,124 bytes +1,651‎ →‎Personal life: Atherton interviewed in spring 2020
• 11:23, 2020 April 7‎ HouseOfChange ‎ 13,606 bytes +19‎ →‎Personal life: improve based talk page
• 14:08, 2020 April 3 HouseOfChange 13,590 bytes +925‎ →‎Personal life: More recent article
• 13:59, 2020 April 3 HouseOfChange ‎ 12,665 bytes +833‎ →‎Personal life: add article about eviction and debate concerning rehousing
• 13:42, 2020 April 3 HouseOfChange ‎ 11,832 bytes -182‎ Undid revision 948899487 by 82.32.88.240 (talk) Remove uncited claim Tag: undo

Those are diffs for my recent edits and edit summaries. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies to any other editors who didn't see this as being self-explanatory. HoC has confused matters. My comments here obviously related to the two subjects above this one i.e. "Paul Atherton Heathrow Homeless" & "Paul Atherton - More recent press coverage - May 2020" It would seem churlish to repeat the content as it's already here." Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Times Radio

Could an editor please tell me how to best address a limited link. Atherton has appeared on Times Radio twice now. However the listen again links are only available for 7 days (the most recent one ends today Saturday 15th August 2020 at midnight)

This was his origainl appearance on Kait Borsay's inugural show on Friday 3rd July 2020 (link now dead) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/radio/show/20200703-3441/2020-07-03

And this was his second appearance on Sunday 8th August 2020 (still live until midnight Saturday 15th August 2020) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/radio/show/20200808-3457/2020-08-08

83.216.90.182 (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia biographies condense the most significant facts about somebody's life and career. There is zero chance of adding links to audio of radio interviews unless independent RS talk about those interviews. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

This didn't address my question at all. However, this was coverage of the campaign that Atherton was doing in respect to Homelessness in the UK and is RS in its own right, Unless for some reason The Times Newspaper here in Britain is no longer acknowledged as such?. It was covering his camapaign Paul's Story Off The Streets that he did in conjumctiom with The Bureau of Investigative Journalism https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2020-06-26/opinion-paul-atherton-from-homeless-at-heathrow-to-a-hotel-and-back-out-again Which involved his weekly countdown to the British Conservative's Government Everyone In Policy with his social media take-over of their Twitter Feed. https://twitter.com/bureaulocal/status/1277907548528611328 83.216.72.203 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Has an article appeared in The Times newspaper about Paul Atherton? A late-night digital talk show that lets Paul Atherton talk is not RS "covering" his countdown or whatever else he may be doing. If you ask questions related to improving the article, I try to answer them. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Times Radio is The Times Newspaper it would be deemed to have the same journalistic merit. Are you suggesting the online version of the The Times newspaper is given more RS weight than the printed version which is very much in decline? And are you also suggesting The Bureau of Investigative Journalism istelf wouldn't be deemed as RS anyway? that would seem to suugest no UK media outlet has RS according to Wikipedia, which would seem a little ludicrous.83.216.72.203 (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC) This page is to discuss improvements to the article Paul Atherton. People talking about themselves are RS for facts about themselves, but people talking about themselves are not evidence of wider interest in those people. If The Bureau of Investigative Journalism is writing ABOUT Paul Atherton, rather than allowing Paul Atherton to provide them with filler text, then post a link to that. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Addnig to an article obviously improves it. Your position makes absolutely no sense. A campaign that is led by an expert on expereince that is then covered by mainstream news cannot be suggested as being anything other than RS.83.216.72.203 (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Send links to mainstream news "covering" Paul Atherton, when and if that happens. Biographies summarize the most significant events and contributions of someone's life. If Paul Atherton makes an important contribution to the problem of homelessness in the UK, I am sure RS will take notice and then we will also. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC) I've just donr so. You do not seem to understand Wikipedia Bios or British (or indeed, any form of) Journalism. Perhaps you better leave this to editors who comprehends this subject and the medium, rather than jumping into something you clearly have no knowledge or understanding of. This started with a question that I've yet to get answered. That's my focus 83.216.74.210 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC) You can reach a wider group of editors by posting requests at WP:BLPN. Make a simple clear request for text you think should be added to this biography, and give a couple of RS that support it. The policy WP:NOTNEWS might help you understand why Paul Atherton's latest oped and talk show audio don't belong in the article until they acquire more significance -- at a minimum, by being discussed in RS independent of Atherton. If he is now working with The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, that is no longer RS independent of Atherton. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC) As I said, no understanding whatsoever of British media. You're confusing Journalism with Publicity. An Op Ed in Britian is a commissioned piece of paid for Journalistic work. It therefore makes the contributor an indpependent journalist not an employee. Employees of publications are known as Staff Writers and will be bylined (their name attached under the headline) as such. However, the TBIJ piece brought about a new type of Jounnalism using both standard traits of an article and intorducing social media as a new one, that event then got covered by news on Times Radio the audio version of the Times Newspaper. which included both Atherton's contribution and the editor from the TBIJ. TBIJ are an investigative Jounralism team that only run a very limited number of stories throughout the year as Investigative Journalism takes an extremley long time. There will have been nothing in the article that Atherton stated that wouldn't have been fact checked by the editor before being released. The coverage of the story of the TBIJ piece on Time Radio, therefore gives it RS. I hope that helps in your understanding. Of course this is why I wsa so keen to get the refencing technique for limited timed links and my original questions, which is yet to nbe answered.83.216.90.198 (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC) My answer to your audio link question was that we would not use those links in this article. If you want a technical answer, try a technical help page, not an article talk page. Paul Atherton talking about himself in an OpEd or on Times Radio is not evidence of wider media interest in Paul Atherton. Duffbeerforme yesterday removed the article's "homelessness campaign material" with the edit summary "get real. Wikipedia is not a personal blog celebrating every little media mention. It is meant to be an encyclopaedia." I agree. From your rudeness, bad typing, and rhetorical questions, I assume that this is Itsallnewtome back again. Your Wikipedia hobby is unproductive, try to find some better use of your time. HouseOfChange (talk)

Misuse of the talk page

I am concerned that the talk page is being misused to display and preserve multiple links to Atherton's writings or media mentions of Atherton, material that would never rise to the level of being part of an encyclopedia article.

Use the talk page to post links to independent RS with material we might use for this bio--not as an annex of Paul-Atherton's-mom's refrigerator, where even his smallest creations live showcased forever.HouseOfChange (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)