User talk:Doc glasgow/Jul 07

Deletion of Starchild Abraham Cherrix

I noticed that Starchild Abraham Cherrix was recently deleted by you when I was looking for it yesterday. This individual has gotten increasing attention (and does have 739 hits on Google). Would it be worthwhile considering undeleting this page? Thanks. Andrew73 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Anna Mae He

Please restore the Anna Mae He article. She just made international news again ([1][2]) and as the story of her custody is continuing, I see no reason why she isn't notable enough for an article because she's more than qualified by the Wikipedia standards. Rebochan 12:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

requested deletion review of Starchild Abraham Cherrix

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Starchild Abraham Cherrix. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew73 12:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please explain more fully

You [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haji_Sultan&diff=128401189&oldid=56915000 didn't like the article name I chose. I don't like the name you chose.

Haji, Mullah, Maulvi, Sheikh are all titles. Isn't it counter to policy to include them in article names, as if they were given names? Even if it isn't counter to policy, it is very confusing.

Could you explain what was wrong with my original choice? Yikes!

I'll look back at Talk:Haji Sultan.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Doc hasn't edited for a couple of weeks, and may be away for a while, or indefinitely. For what it's worth, we do occasionally use titles in titles *(so to speak): Pope John I Pope John II Pope John III... The convention is detailed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), but in short we want to keep it short (so to speak). :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We tend to avoid titles with reigning monarchs, like Henry IV of England, because King would be redundant there, and it is often easier to link to him without it. But it is not policy to omit them; and for English and European nobility (John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, Charles, Duke of Orleans), we default to including them. In this case, a disambiguation by title, like James Douglas, Lord of Douglas, is preferable to parentheses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP - Brian Souter

Hello Doc. I listed Brian Souter at BLP a couple of days ago, and have been rather dismayed by the weak response of the Wikipedia community. As an editor likely to have a deal of background knowledge of the topic, and a key defender of BLP, I wonder if you could give your opinion? --Mais oui! 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV: Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I believe this will be a formality, as Doc hasn't edited in a month (otherwise I would have asked him before, not after the DRV), but just in case. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Garside

Doc, I read your piece at the top, and yes, I get it. We can’t mention anything negative about Robert Garside’s world run, no matter how well sourced. But at least let’s correct a glaring error that I’m sure you can’t object to. The Wikipedia entry states that he re-started his run in New Delhi in 1997. There are four years worth of newspaper reports showing quite clearly that he didn't. He began his run in London in 1996 and continued his run without any restarts at all. Below are just a few sources– there are many, many more -- that state this clearly, including quotes from Garside himself:

Robert Garside, 31, left London in December 1996, on a 55,000-kilometer journey around the world. He has so far covered about 16,000 km in Europe and Asia. “British globe runner arrives in Tokyo” -- Kyodo News agency, June 11, 1998

“I started off in London, running across to Moscow, through Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and China.” Garside quote, during interview with Metropolis magazine in Japan, 1998, http://metropolis.co.jp/lifeinjapanarchive249/226/lifeinjapaninc.htm

He set off in December 1996 and his route has already taken him across much of Europe, Russia, India, China, Japan, Thailand and part of Australia.

  “World run Briton sets new distance record “ -- The Daily Telegraph, September 11, 1998, 

“On his trek that began almost four years ago, he has been shot at in Russia, robbed in Pakistan, jailed in China and had guns pulled on him in Panama and now, in Mexico.” “Running Man Battles Blisters, Bullets”, August 2 2000 http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100828&page=1

He left London on Dec. 7, 1996, and has covered Australia, Asia, Europe and South America. “On bad days, British man running around the world gets chased” – AP, August 4, 2000

The former policeman left London in December 1996, and has jogged about 30,000 miles, covering Europe, Asia, Aus-tralia and Latin America. “RUNNINGMAN FINDS HIS FEET ON LA ROADS” – Birmingham Post, October 5, 2000

Garside set off from Piccadilly Circus, London, on December 7, 1996, with 20 and a rucksack. Since leaving, he has barely stopped for breath, running through deserts and mud, dust bowls and snow, mountains and jungles. Having conquered four continents, Mr. Garside is presently in the U.S.

     'World at his feet' – The Hindu, September 23, 2000

As you can see from that last entry, even India’s largest newspaper reported in 2000 that Garside had begun his run in London, and not near their head office in New Delhi.

As I said, I won’t change the entry to make mention of the well-documented fabrications (even though they have been extensively written about and Garside has admitted them.) But at least can we put newspapers that reported on them in the source list? Most of the sources which report Garside’s admitted fabrications and call his run into question have also been deleted, and only two remain. These are buried at the bottom of 22 news reports dates 26 and 27 March 2007, all copies of the same Reuters/AFP wire story announcing the Guinness award.

I would therefore suggest the following: 1) Change the erroneous information about the starting point – it was London, not New Delhi. 2) Put the sources in chronological order so that the journey can be followed from start to finish, not finish to start. 3) Reduce the 22 identical wire-based stories which announce the Guinness award down to a reasonable number, in order not to swamp the more detailed stories about Garside’s run. 4) Restore the newspaper reports that have been deleted from the source list, which include large-circulation national British newspapers like The Express on Sunday, the Daily Mail, the Independent and the Sun.

If you agree to this then I'll make the changes and ask you to read through to ensure everything is fair and balanced and well sourced. Thanks.

I suggest you take this to the talk page of the article. I no longer wish to be involved.--Doc^g 08:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)