Talk:Charles Thomson (journalist)

This page is bias
I don’t believe the information on this page and seems to have been written by the author themselves El dude brother2 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but could you clarify what issue with neutrality you have? It's well sourced. And no, I'm not Charles Thomson.--Nb44154 (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Investigative Journalist
One user Jude1313 is now unduly edit warring. Charles Thomson is an investigative journalist. Israell (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Expert claim
One user Israell is now unduly edit warring. Charles Thomson not known as a Michael Jackson expert. Israell also reverted a corrective edit where it was proven that the subject was not recorded as winning the award that was claimed. This was proven by providing another Wikipedia page. Uranarse (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

TruthGuardians is now unduly edit warring. Charles Thomson not known as a Michael Jackson expert nor is anyone in a search. Bananasasas (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Uranarse (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Investigative Journalist is false information
One user talk is now unduly edit warring. Charles Thomson is an NOT an investigative journalist. Charles Thomson is a self-admitted Freelance Journalist. Jude1313

Investigative Journalist
Jude1313, pardon me? I've reverted one on your edits with due cause, so how am I edit warring? As I've typed above, you are unduly edit warring. The article makes it very clear: "In 2018 he won the national Ray Fitzwalter investigative journalism award for his investigation into the cover up of an historic pedophile ring.", and two sources are provided.

Furthermore, his own official website says: "Described by media experts as a 'livewire' and a 'credit to his profession', he has won accolades as an investigative journalist, a crime reporter and feature writer." Therefore, Charles Thomson is admittedly an investigative journalist. Israell (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Investigative Journalist is false information
Excuse me? Undertaking one or two small investigations DOES NOT make a journalist an Investigative Journalist. You are quoting from Thomsons own website, a BIASED source. Charles falsely holds out to be a court reporter (with zero legal qualification) and an investigative reporter having undertaken one or two small investigations. He also asked Michael Jackson fans to vote for him to win the Ray Fitzwalter Award advising them on Twitter how to vote multiple times on multiple devices. I have reported this fraud to Salford University. The correct description of Thomson from his work history is Freelance Journalist and Music Journalist. He has not spent enough years in investigative journalism to warrant the title. It is a HUGE discredit to true investigative journalists. Jude1313 —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Investigative Journalist
The article already listed two sources. I've added a third source (his official website) since official websites (unlike fansites) are accepted on Wiki as sources. Wiki demands verifiability, and the information is verifiable. Whether or not you personally consider him to be a true investigative journalist or not, it does not change the fact Charles Thomson is indeed officially an investigative journalist. Israell (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Jude1313, I've just added a fourth source, and a BIG one, from the NME.com website this time. Israell (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

NME has not confirmed your claim by that link or any link. You have been edit warring over your opinions not facts. Charles Thomson is not a Micheal Jackson expert as you claim. In fact, there is no such thing.

And he's nominated for the Paul Foot Award for investigative journalism. Emeraude (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bombastic claims with no merit
Israell also removed the template twice regarding this article which is marked for deletion unless a correction is made that proves this is a notable person. Charles Thomson won an award as a student and as a beginning journalist (voted on by the people not his peers). There is also no proof of other awards. Being an investigative reporter as a hobby is respectable altho not notable in itself to carry that title in an encyclopedia.

Uranarse (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Notability is not a measure of importance; it is a measure of whether someone has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources. If you want to have a long-standing article with 60 source deleted, then you need to go do WP:AFD, not proposed deletion, which is only for uncontroversial cases.  G M G  talk  17:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The rule is "You may remove this message if you improve the article OR otherwise object to deletion for any reason." Israell has repeatedly removed the template without improving the article. This is edit warring. Uranarse (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No! The template says: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." "Or" is the key-word here. Do you understand what "or" means? And it says: "If this template is removed, do not replace it.", so you've broken the rules by replacing it twice. Israell (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You did not discuss here your objection and removing it is edit warring. Do you have a connection to the subject and why is it in your interest to exaggerate his achievements and public persona? Please discuss the claim you reinstated that he is a "Michael Jackson expert". According to whom and what publications? Uranarse (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC) 17:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone can object to a PROD for any reason. PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions, and if someone removed the template it is presumed to be contested and the article should go to WP:AfD. Moreover, probably any article that has been around this long and has this much content and sourcing should go to AfD regardless, and that alone is enough to challenge the PROD.  G M G  talk

"He knows more than I do!" quote doesn't appear in sourced article yet keeps getting added back in bio
"In 2011, Thomson interviewed Jackson's brother Jermaine Jackson. During the interview, Jermaine said of Thomson, "He knows more than I do!" Two years later, before Jacksons' first performance in London for 40 years, Jermaine granted Thomson his only solo promotional interview." "He knows more than I do!" needs a source to be added back. Israell is edit warring. Bananasasas (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not edit this article since Dec. 17th of last year. If such an accusation is not baiting, I'd love to know what that is. Israell (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are taking this comment personally that wasn't addressed to you? Why not find a source for that quote or agree it doesn't belong? Bananasasas (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ping-pong edits
You seem to be playing ping-pong, or edit warring. Can I suggest reaching consensus here rather than continuing to revert? Best, Darren-M   talk  19:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the suggestion. I’m up for it. Bananasasas, what edit would you like to make and what are your reasons and/or supporting evidence? TruthGuardians (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for assistance. It's apparent Charles is a fledging writer who hasn't distinguished himself to the public as a professional writer to deserve an entry here beyond his up and coming writer opportunities even as a student contestant. His biggest accolade is an award for "early career journalists" living and working outside of London and there have one been 2 yearly winners to date. The competition is part of the University of Salford's Nations And Regions Media Conference. The Ray Fitzwalter Award sounds to be a lovely award but we cannot say it is prestigious or widely recognized nor was the man it was named after known; even he doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Would we give biographies to EVERY nearly 8,000 yearly recipients of the Fulbright Scholarship?. Also keep in mind that Charles won this prize over two other participants and one's entry he beat regarded "a MediaCity-based BBC Radio 4 producer who made a programme introducing a 90-year-old woman to the bosses of charities who had hounded her for money".

His biography claims he has written for the tabloids, The Sun and The Mirror. I only found his acknowledgement that he was a research assistant for an article for The Sun and there was only one article in The Mirror which he co-wrote and shared a byline.

As far as The Guardian, he was nominated for a student award and is NOT on the list of winners and amongst the prize is 6 weeks of work experience at The Guardian. Also note that "journalist" was changed to "reporter" in subsequent awards. He was given a commendation which is praise and not an award. I do not see any proof or reason there is an implication he writes for this publication which main's newsprint sections are published in tabloid format.

Did he write for MOJO? I see no proof of this either and would it be notable? He contributed a 6 or 7 page article about James Brown, would this be notable for a professional writer or an amateur writer?

Let's explore and not take the word of the editor that migrated the subject's website here. He has 6 articles at tabloid Yellow Advertiser. https://www.yellowad.co.uk/?s=charles+thomson They posted on 10/30/2017, 4/24/2019 5/17/2019, 8/21/2019,9/27/2019, and 12/23/2019. This would make him a sometime contributor and if he was employed there from 2011-2019, that goes in a resume not a biography. "Yellow Advertiser is a free online newspaper and website covering Essex and east London". http://tindlenews.co.uk/products/

He never had a blog at The Huffington Post or HuffPost. He contributed 11 articles for free in 6.5 years. Started at 23 years old.

The Huffington Post or HuffPost uses unpaid writers and accepts contributions. There is no proof that he was one of their youngest contributor at 23 years old or given his own blog.

This quote "He knows more than I do!" was not in the article linked to it, so until it is a proven stated by Jermaine Jackson, it doesn't belong in the biography.

Bananasasas (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I did the research and this page makes claims that they are involved in stories and situations that cannot be verified beyond their own website or articles. Clean up on this biography is strongly needed. Bananasasas (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sticking to the sources per WP requirement WP:StickToSources. Thanks for the suggestion though, but it’s my understanding that you are topic banned from all MJ sanctioned articles. This is one of them. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Regardless, shortlisting for the Paul Foot Award 2020 for his Yellow Advertiser investigation and nominatin for Society of Editors' awards is more than enough to be notable. Emeraude (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The mess this article is in is daunting.
I can't even tell if the guy's notable; the article was first created when he was 23 years old. The references are terrible. There's all sorts of puffery and trivia. I'm a bit overwhelmed at how to even start to clean this up. The first thing to do is probably remove the worst of the references, so I'll make a start on that. —valereee (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, I've made a start through starting from the top. Honestly, I have to suspect there's major COI editing going on here. —valereee (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's possible COI editing, see first edit summary by . —valereee (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Awards section
We shouldn't be mentioning any awards that don't have an article. If anyone can correct to bluelinks, please do. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Grandiose claims of winning awards, commendations, and shortlists
Be aware that entering an unremarkable contest and winning doesn’t mean you have to exhaust everyone with self-promotion of “award winning” every time your name appears. I understand this biography is a freelance writer and wants to stand out. I don’t feel this belongs here as winning the first Ray Fitzwalter Award for amateur writers that live outside of London over only 2 other applicants doesn’t make a basis for a Wikipedia page. I will say that I think the investigation conducted by him and his colleagues is important work. Maybe the investigation should have its own page and not the person related to the newspaper that conducted it. Hugsruing (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Your first edits are in regards to a “free lance writer.” There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, but yet your edits are the exact same of another topic banned editor. You don’t get to decide what is “unremarkable.” An article sources decides that. You don’t get to decide what you “feel”. Slings in an article. Sources determine that. Stick to the sources. WP:STICKTOSOURCESTruthGuardians (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nomination for Paul Foot Award is more than sufficient (and was mysteriously deleted from the article - now reinserted). Emeraude (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , User, as suspected turned out to be a sock puppet already topic banned. Disruptive editing should be minimal now. I'm focusing on bettering the article. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't surprise me. Emeraude (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Further edits
, please slow down. A lot of the refs you add seems to be crap, and please do better than bare url, see WP:TUTORIAL. WP:BLP is picky about refs. This edit for example doesn't make sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

All of my references directly pertain to what is mentioned in the article, to what a source is needed for. As for this edit, it does mention the alleged DNA testing method in question. As for the bare URLs, they will be fixed. Israell (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Pertain to" is not the whole of it, WP:RS is a thing. Your edit/ref covers nothing of "In October 2010, Tomi Rae Brown, the widow of Brown, gave Thomson the most in-depth interview she had ever given. In the article published by Sawf News, Brown spoke about her husband's 2004 arrest for domestic assaul". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)