This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Regarding this edit: All we have are two lines that he wrote. I could turn to any piece he's written and pull a line and then go to twitter and pull another line, and the inclusion of those lines would be just as valid. We don't do that. There needs to be a reason to include this, and as it is written, there is none at all. -- Irn (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting, you could have improved the article or gone to discussion. Instead, you deleted sourced material with no justification. That being said, I'm happy to discuss it here. A prize-winning editor advocating violence, even just doing so for shock value, seems pretty notable for me. As WP:PUBLICFIGURE says, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I'm happy to re-write it to provide more context to the controversy. Looking back, it seems that my edit may have been considered original research. However, to condescend with a "we don't do that" when reporting on a controversial statement by a writer is simply false.MKil (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)MKil[reply]
... in order to halt the edit war over how to describe Henderson's firing from the Free Press. The article at the point of this protection describes the reason for the firing in exactly the terminology used in the source. If there are alternative wordings (and soruces) they should be discussed here rather than edit-warred into the article. In proposing any alternative wording, please have regard for WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and make sure no words or descriptions are used that are beyond what can be rigorously supported by reliable sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
