Jump to content

Talk:Scott Williamson (hiker)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions regarding long lists

[edit]

User:Tr-browsing keeps on inserting long lists of the subject's gear and food habits. Example [1]. I keep on removing this and left a message on the user's talk page, but it keeps on being reinserted. I feel that this long list is non-encyclopediac and is excessive trivia detail. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:
That information is relatively unimportant (see WP:TRIVIA) in addition to being almost wholly unsourced. The sources that are provided are claimed to have been accessed in 2008, which cannot be true. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (see WP:IINFO #3). Thus, it is my view that this information does not belong in the article per Wikipedia's content guidelines.—Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:CutOffTies and User:Reaper Eternal, so I deleted the material. It seems to me that User:Tr-browsing may very well have a conflict of interest, and should not be adding material to this page.—hike395 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have reverted some of the edits done today by User:Tr-browsing, here are the explanations:

  • Personal quotes. Generally, articles about people do not directly quote the person, unless the quotation itself is very-well known. This is following WP:SELFPUB, trying to avoid self-serving material in Wikipedia. I will repeat my concern that User:Tr-browsing seems to be a single-purpose account for only writing an article about Scott Williamson --- this is very likely to be a conflict of interest. This causes me to be doubly-careful about including direct quotes from Mr. Williamson.
  • External links / references --- the references I removed are already in the reference list: there is no need to repeat them in a separate external link section. I left reference links that are not explicit inline citations.

Hopefully this helps explain my edits. I'm willing to discuss further. —hike395 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still uneasy about including direct quotes from Mr. Williamson to describe his motivation --- that seems very close to original research based on a primary source. The only saving grace is that the article does make any inference about motivations, but I am not sure that is enough to save it. What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]