Talk:Joshua Cooper Ramo
| 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. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
I believe he used to work for NPR, is that correct? Slipshodd (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Inclusion of Opinion Piece Material in the Controversies Section[edit]
per WP:RSUW, it seems to me that the opinion piece of one editor, who is unrelated to the controversy at hand (i.e. not the author of the controversial statements, nor an affiliate of NBC or any of the related parties), does not carry enough weight to merit inclusion in the controversies section. However, I would like to know what other editors think, because the editor who keeps undoing my edits has failed to provide a reasonable explanation as to why it should be included. Additionally, if it is determined that the opinion piece material defending the controversial remarks should indeed stay, it seems only right that it should be contextualized by the overwhelmingly negative responses by news outlets, other opinion pieces, etc. Again, per WP:RSUW BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- You are too much sticking to WP:RSUW which is neither WP:Policy nor WP:Guideline and merely one of thousands of essays with a total edit of 48 mostly edited by one indef blocked user. Moreover in this case, it doesn't apply because in addition to the Fortune's article, two major Korean media, JoongAng Ilbo and HuffPost reported the Norman Pearlstine's commentary which means the commentary is notable enough to mention in this article. I agree to hear other editors' opinion. Why don't you open a RFC to draw more editors' attention?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)