Talk:Scott Thomas

Scott Thomas Beauchamp

We should keep the details about allegations against Beauchamp in once place, not only because his article covers a current event, but also because it involves a media controversy. Also, none of the other people on this disambiguation page are paired with their controversies or allegations about their careers.Athene cunicularia 17:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Glass (disambiguation) listed Stephen Glass as "disgraced journalist," since that's what he's known for. Same with Scott. Your latest edit reflects this, however, so hopefully this should be sufficient until The New Republic comes back with any concrete findings. Calbaer 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Scott isn't discredited. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. That's why we have to be careful with notoriety vs. notability.Athene cunicularia 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't been discredited, but he's notable only because his stories have been questioned, not due to other aspects (e.g., impact, journalistic breakthrough, literary acclaim). And since "soon-to-perhaps-be-discredited-or-maybe-not" won't work, this disambig needs a few more words than we might otherwise like. Anyway, as I said, I'm just saying that the summary should be accurate and useful; I'm okay with your current wording, though "published" is a bit of an inaccuracy: Magazines publish; authors write. However, everyone should know what's meant, so relaxing the English language to save a few words is fine by me. Calbaer 19:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He's obviously notable for what (true or not) he said, otherwise people wouldn't be worried about whether it's truth or not. Regardless, was his work not published in the The New Republic? Do authors not publish books, i.e. "How many books have you published?"Athene cunicularia 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's probably one of those examples of changed language, sort of like how people used to say, "I've been graduated," rather than "I've graduated." In any event, I doubt he'd be notable for what he said if what he said weren't questioned, but I suppose that's debatable. But, again, you mentioned the allegations, so there should be no problem. Calbaer 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this is nit-picking, but according to Webster's, it's okay to say, "I've published," but not to say, "I've published these stories." "I've published" is shorthand for "I've been published," whereas the transitive form should not be used with the author as the subject of the sentence. It's worth knowing what's proper English, but not worth a revert war over it, so I'll leave it to your discretion as to whether you want to change this. Calbaer 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's POV to focus on the accusation of falsehood. I've changed it to state that his stories were "controversial", a neutral phrasing (in a sense, a one-word version of Calbear's "soon-to-perhaps-be-discredited-or-maybe-not"). The details of course deserve full elaboration in the article. JamesMLane t c 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not POV to mention the reason he's notable. See, for example, Tripp: "Linda Tripp, figure in the Lewinsky scandal." It would be equally true to say, "Linda Tripp, controversial former White House employee," but it's obvious why that isn't how it's phrased. Unfortunately, this controversy doesn't have a name yet, but lack of a snappy handle is no reason to exclude such information from the disambiguation summary. Calbaer 05:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue about what to mention is governed by policies about how much detail to give on a dab page, not by NPOV. NPOV applies to the question of how to describe whatever subjects are included. As to the former point, reference to the controversy is borderline, in this case. There's a good argument for omitting it entirely. As to the latter, using the term "controversial" is preferable to the previous wording because it gives equal acknowledgement to both sides, instead of presenting only one side's accusations. The analogy to "Linda Tripp, controversial former White House employee" would be "Scott Thomas Beauchamp, controversial writer for the New Republic, but that's not the way I've phrased it. JamesMLane t c 15:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing has it has now been proven that the controversial stories were fabrications, the page has been updated and referenced to reflect as such. Mrprada911 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

TNR still stands by their investigation, thoughAthene cunicularia 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, however, it is has been incontrovertibly proven that the stories were fabrications. There is a NPOV way to make that point--by saying "published fabricated accounts" or something similar. Considering that the wikilink moves directly to the article on the fabrications, and not a biography of Beauchamp, it is extremely relevant to the disambiguation. Mrprada911 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wrote" vs. "Fabricated"

1. Per WP:MoS (disamb), the description associated with a link should be sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.
2. Per WP:MoS (disamb), articles should not be pipe linked. Since there is no biography article for Scott Thomas Beauchamp (and since he is only notable for one incident, there should not be), the link redirects to Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. When there are exceptions to piped links, they should be explained. The article is about the fabrication controversy, not the controversial articles themselves--hence, noting that he fabricated the stories will lead the reader to identify the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Controversy.

Thanks. Mrprada911 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Scott Thomas (disambiguation))" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Scott Thomas (disambiguation)). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 24#Scott Thomas (disambiguation)) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)