Talk:Patrick Haseldine
Contents
My WikiSpooks Biography
I propose to make a number of amendments to my WikiSpooks biography, and to include some missing references. Am I allowed to edit my own biography? Patrick Haseldine 11:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- No problem with that Patrick. Wikipedia has some serious blind-spots and biases which this site seeks to redress. There's bags of stuff about it in the project pages - especially The problem with Wikipedia. --Peter P 12:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Length
I've just done some minor trimming, but I'm concerned that the article is rather long. Perhaps we could think about how to split it up into subsidiary articles, main topics, Patrick Haseldine's Criticism of Thatcher etc. Following the wikipedia style, these could have a summary treatment in the page itself, preceded by "Main article: Patrick Haseldine's Interest in The Lockerbie Bombing" to point readers to the more specialised page on just that topic. Robin 04:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Now weighing in at over 150K, this article is longer than ever, so I propose to split it as suggested above. The aim would be to help users reach the material of most interest to them by chopping it into bits - well, maybe just one extra bit to start, such as Patrick Haseldine's Interest in The Lockerbie Bombing. The next step would be to move the relevant content there, and replace it in this page with a summary paragraph, and pointer to the main article. What do you think? Robin (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2013 (IST)
Critique by John Ashton
I'm all for constructive criticism by WS editors and will respond to John Ashton in due course. However, I've had to excise the "actionable material" part of John's critique to protect WS from the legal beagles! --Patrick Haseldine 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Patrick. I was aware of the issue. In fielding writs past I quickly learned that European Communities (Directive 2000/31/EC) Regs 2003 provides a cause for action where an owner posts linked content whilst on notice that it is claimed to be defamatory. My only issue was whether or not to remove it before being placed on such notice. You have pre-empted that decision so I'll leave it alone for now. --Peter P 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Focus
This article needs a tidy. It is, after all, supposed to be about Patrick Haseldine, but the extensive Lockerbie fact section doesn't even mention him! The next section begins "Virtually everything else is ..." - quite a puzzling beginning for an article section, in my opinion. I'm not challenging the validity or importance of anything in this article, but I am asking whether it needs to be here. We have quite a lot of Lockerbie material, so perhaps we could make an article or two about how the commercially-controlled media handled Lockerbie?
Robin (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2013 (IST)
- Agreed on all counts. But how to prioritise the required work? --Peter P (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2013 (IST)
- Article tidied, as suggested. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2013 (IST)
Extraneous Material
The sections "Highest profile Pan Am Flight 103 victim" and "Blackout over Lockerbie" don't mention Patrick Haseldine, so they should either be deleted, moved elsewhere or ammended to explain their relevance here. Robin (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2013 (IST)
- Sections amended to show relevance. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2013 (IST)
