Talk:Christian Furr

Birth
It says he was born in "Wales, England", which is ludicrous nonsense: it is either one or the other, but can't be both. So, which is it? If it isn't altered soon, I'lll merely delete the offending sentence. If it can be corrected, it should be verifiably corrected. DDStretch   (talk)  22:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've corrected it by adding a ref to the fact that he was born in Heswall, which wass how I came to read this article to check an entry made in that town's article. More refs should be added, including an attempt to make as many external links refs as possible in line with guidelines given in WP:EL.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian Furr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824002514/http://www.aoc.co.uk/en/aoc_beacon_gold_and_other_awards/aoc_beacon_gold_awards/aoc_gold_awards/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-2004.cfm to http://www.aoc.co.uk/en/aoc_beacon_gold_and_other_awards/aoc_beacon_gold_awards/aoc_gold_awards/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-2004.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Vantablack
removed a quote from Furr, upon which later material depended for context. Contrary to the edit summary, which claimed the source "should not be used or trusted for any claim", our policy is, according to the 2019 RfC's conclusion:

"...facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case."

Unless an alternative source is provided, the edit should be reverted. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If that's the only source for it in the world, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, because it's not a noteworthy claim from a Reliable Source. This is a BLP, and you can't really cherry-pick a sentence from an RFC conclusion to override that. The intro of WP:BLP directly references WP:BURDEN on this, which says: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.. The DM isn't an RS, so can't do this job - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that you have again removed the cited statement, while again providing no alternative soure, and thus again left the following text with no context. Our policy is clear, as stated above. The burden was met, in in with policy, by the source you have removed. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't, because the DM is not an RS. But as you wish, I'll remove the following text too - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed c'n'p error instead. But this article has quite bad sourcing in any case, which I've just tagged. Adding a known bad source is not really the right direction to be going in - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And again: "We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC...". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It can't override WP:BURDEN. And especially on a BLP, what on earth - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Publicity article
The article is merely a set of self-publicising work and, as such, lowers the seriousness with which Wikipedia can be taken.