Talk:Tim Luckhurst

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tim Luckhurst article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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 supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conflict of interest

This article is clearly self-written, or written by someone close to the subject. It is non-POV and narcissistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.250.158 (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above user's suspicion that this article has conflict of interest issues. I have removed many of this article's citations to the subject's writings which only serve to boost Luckhurst's profile. Links to commercial websites are not considered appropriate to Wikipedia, and I have removed those as well. User:Gutterbluid seems to have added much of this material to the article. This user's other edits also suggest a COI, as they also relate to Luckhurst. Philip Cross (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems most of the article should be deleted. This is wikipedia, not a place to post your own CV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.199.145 (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be being used as an online CV. Most of the recent edits by a single user appear to be adding non-notable details. This user appears to have a conflict.

I would push for a major tidy of this page, and consider whether its subject warrants this much minor detail on very insignificant topics.

Again- I am suggesting that the author appears to have a conflict of interest, and that this page should not be used as a CV. Comments welcome. PateraIncus (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders, on reflection, whether this page is not a candidate for deletion? the demands of re-editing the page to remove the frequent edition of non-significant information, as well as the need to rewrite large sections to comply with Wikipedia's policies on self-promotion, hardly seem justifiable given the very minor public presence of the page's subject. None of the individual achievements of the subject seem to merit such an extensive Wikipedia entry; professors of journalism at Kent University, erstwhile editors of The Scotsman, nor principals of Durham University colleges usually merit a Wikipedia page which is *this* contentious. If the page didn't already exist, would anyone bother to create it? happy to hear comments too. 123Tiradentes456 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I draw attention to the fact that in Sptember 2023 the entire section "Controversies" was deleted by FromulentDisco.On the false grounds it was "unrepresentative and irrelevant". The truth is all these controversies were documented in the national media. The appropriate source references were all properly disclosed in the Wiki article too. There are clear signs of persistent whitewashing of this individual's Wiki profile. No negative content remains at this point. Frakofile (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Frakofile (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware this Wiki page repeatedly has individuals deleting all controversies. Frakofile (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note from the editing history that the same meaningful, accurate information is deleted or truncated. This disguises or changes the context of the page. If the same information is reposted by another Wiki editor it regularly happens again. The deleted or abbreviated information is material. It seems an ongoing attempt to portray the subject in the most favourable light possible. Frakofile (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we may have another sockpuppet self-editor here, namely FromulentDisco. It's only edited this article and all the edits appear favourable. This is getting silly. Suggest we revert all their edits? PateraIncus (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I draw attention to the fact the entire section "Controversies" has been deleted by FromulentDisco.On the false grounds it was "unrepresentative and irrelevant". The truth is all these controversies were documented in the national media. The appropriate source references were all properly disclosed in the Wiki article too. There are clear signs of persistent whitewashing of this individual's Wiki profile. No negative content remains at this point. Frakofile (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of any negative comments continues. Frakofile (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of content based on claims of bias

This Wiki page has repeatably had properly referenced, material and nationally known content removed because an individual regards it 'unbalanced'. Without stating why. Deleting entire sections because of personal opinions on bias is unacceptable. Add balance instead. Don't delete. Read Wiki rules. Frakofile (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing deletion of Controversies Section

Stop deleting the section on "Controversies". It's well referenced and was covered by national news. With reference to Wiki editors rules, it's wrong to remove substantial and material content, based on one editor's personal opinion. Don't delete, but put forward content that provides evidence the Wiki content is 'unbalanced' Frakofile (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]