Talk:British Gazette

"Hypothesis" of global warming
This article mentions the "hypothesis" of anthropogenic global warming. Surely the scientific consensus is that this is an established and accepted theory, not a hypothesis? NearlyDrNash (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this comment has been attached to the wrong paper's article - global warming as we now understand the issue was surely not even discussed in 1926!Cloptonson (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated publication
This 2009 website of the same name is an entirely unrelated publication to the 1926 newspaper.

I feel User:Britishpatrioticindividual's argument here to be without merit, there is no such thing as "taking over a brand" by registering a domain name.

I also feel this to be a conflict of interest - this person seems to only be using the page as an advertisement for their own website and political views (see WP:COI).

My usual suggested course of action would be to split this section off to a separate page, but I feel that the 2009 website would not meet WP:NOTE, so I recommend the section be removed from the page. Skuld (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IP User:109.123.98.182 has put it back again, so I've removed it again - I don't know if this IP is related to previously mentioned individuals, but I'll semi-protect the article if it continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

==
 * IP User:109.123.98.182 blocked for 48 hours, article semi-protected for 3 months -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

Just to let you know it is not me who is doing this. Look at my blog (http://www.british-gazette.co.uk) and you will see that the views expressed are regarded by some as extreme – I naturally regard them as extreme common sense! You know the phrase; Judge a man by the company he keeps? Well, I suppose one could paraphrase it to; Judge a newspaper/blog/whatever by the readers they have. I felt that this would likely occur when I asked my readers not to bother writing articles. They feel (I think with justification) that political bias is entering here. You may not like or approve of the views expressed in the blog but we all have the right to free expression as long as we do not incite others to commit criminal acts.Britishpatrioticindividual (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason the bit about your blog is being removed is nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of your blog, about its opinions, or about any political bias at all - it is because it is completely and utterly unrelated to the 1926 newspaper of the same name, which is what this article is about. This article is about the 1926 newpaper, not your blog, and if your readers are genuinely incapable of understanding that very simple concept, what does that say about them? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)