| Revision as of 18:15, 1 May 2023 editCerroFerro (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users2,714 edits →Manual of style← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:15, 2 May 2023 edit undoNikkimaria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users232,711 edits →Manual of style: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ::Exactly one...ONE...editor has complained about the "tone" or that the article is "a mess." The person who continues to post the notice has not offered a single argument as to why the entire article should be stigmatized as such: "so far no defense has been put forward" by the posting editor. The high quality of article speaks for itself.--] (]) 18:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC) | ::Exactly one...ONE...editor has complained about the "tone" or that the article is "a mess." The person who continues to post the notice has not offered a single argument as to why the entire article should be stigmatized as such: "so far no defense has been put forward" by the posting editor. The high quality of article speaks for itself.--] (]) 18:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
| :::Three people on this talk page have suggested they believe the article has issues. There are specific rationales for the tagging in the section above. So no, we cannot say that the "high quality of article speaks for itself", and it's not appropriate to remove the tag at this time. ] (]) 00:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:15, 2 May 2023
 | Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Charles Higham quote and McCarthysim
Dear DD - I do not object to you removing the Higham quote, but I do request that you replace it with one that supports the material that preceded it. As is, the material left without a source.
You wrote that the Higham quote is "a hyper-ideological apologia for McCartyhism totally inappropriate" in a Misplaced Pages article. Perhaps you can provide the names of those film critics you consider qualified to comment on the Hollywood blacklist, under which Milestone may have suffered.
Your imperative "The quote has been excised and must not be reinstated" is delightful and daring. In return, I offer you this remarkable obituary on the inimitable actor Richard Harris, like yourself "a professional Irishman", and written by Marxist writer and film critic Paul Bond.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/10/harr-o30.html
--Lord Such&Such (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Tone
This article is in need of editing for tone - encyclopedic writing should not use colloquialisms and should remain impartial. For example, words to watch should generally be avoided, as should flowery phrasings like "had the shared misfortune of competing with a veritable pantheon". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out, Nikkimaria, agree 100% here. Hopefully the repeated reverts by a certain user will stop now and encyclopaedic work will proceed. Robert Kerber (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Manual of style
Not sure why my edit has been reverted but this article is a mess. Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- A certain user has made repeated reverts, including repeated removals of the "tone" banner, but it looks like this has stopped now thanks to the above comment by Nikkimaria. Robert Kerber (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- User:Thedarkknightli: You are welcome to revert, but keep them within Wiki Rules limits. Using the pejorative term "a mess" to describe an article requires positive evidence. The article, as written has been visited and edited numerous times without any generalized complaint. Please enter into a discussion and defend your position.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- CerroFerro, at the moment there are multiple editors who see problems with the article as written, and so far no defense has been put forward for your position that it has none. I'd invite you to join the discussion above. In the interim though, the tag should remain in place. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly one...ONE...editor has complained about the "tone" or that the article is "a mess." The person who continues to post the notice has not offered a single argument as to why the entire article should be stigmatized as such: "so far no defense has been put forward" by the posting editor. The high quality of article speaks for itself.--CerroFerro (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Three people on this talk page have suggested they believe the article has issues. There are specific rationales for the tagging in the section above. So no, we cannot say that the "high quality of article speaks for itself", and it's not appropriate to remove the tag at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)