Talk:Gabriel Thomson

The Sun
It appears The Sun was a more reliable source than some people give it credit for. I appreciate that certain websites/articles may not be considered reliable enough for use as resources on Wikipedia, but surely unless there is another source to dismiss the original source then these initial sources should be left alone? Nothing in my original edit was libellous, nor was anything a breach of rules on Wikipedia. Either way, it turns out that the original source was accurate and should never have been considered anything but without another source against it, in my opinion. 81.158.172.137 (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is all well and good, but libellous it was. Unfortunatly The Sun cannot be be considered a reliable source, especially on it's own. Think one moment about the logic of your argument: If one source states that someone had been arrested for possession of a class A drug, but no others backed it up, would you honestly say "Oh well, one source says it is so, so we must assume it is"? No, you would seek to find others (especially reliable sources such as the BBC) to back it up. Essentially, adding the material was "...a breach of rules on Wikipedia", and a big, big one at that - go take a long, hard look at WP:BLP. Talk Islander 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Sun newspaper has been running for over 40 years, and while it has occasionally got things wrong (as has the BBC many times over their history, might I add), it is still a reliable enough source to be used. It is hardly a "blog" site, and it certainly wouldn't have lasted over 40 years in the business if it was unreliable. I am not saying that it was definitely right because there were no sources to disprove it, but the fact of the matter is that it was right, and until it could have been proven wrong it shouldn't have been thrown out. If the BBC had had the story on their news as fast as the Sun, would they have been deemed "unreliable" because they were the only ones reporting it at the time? I highly doubt it. There is no need for snobbishness towards a newspaper because it doesn't come up to your own personal standards. Must we go through Wikipedia and back up every single reference with at least two others for definite accuracy? As for your comment about the story being libellous, that is just unfair. The story is/was/ and always will be fact, and if anyone did anything damaging to their reputation, it was the articles' subject matter themselves, not a national newspaper or a person on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be seen as a court of law; innocent until proven guilty. If someone gives a reference from a site (which in this case was a national newspaper and therefore at least as reliable as a national corporation such as the BBC) then it should be up to the next line of editors to disprove that link with another before accusing the original source of being unreliable.81.158.172.137 (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter still stands that The Sun is regarded less favourably than, say, the BBC. That is fact, and ironically is probably verifiable by other sources (but no, I'm not going to dig them up now). Reliable, verifiable sources aside, it is undeniable that stating that someone has been arrested for possesion of class A drugs is potentially libellous, unless it is thouroughly sourced. Please, read WP:BLP, as it appears that you have not. Also, take a look at this message, from Jimbo Wales, the creator of Wikipedia. Negative, libellous material should be aggresivley removed from articles until is can be sourced, and in this case, a source from The Sun is not sufficient, and though you may argue 'till the cows come home, I guarentee that you will find consensus against you on this one. Talk Islander 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the BBC is more favourable than The Sun, but I do take issue with your opinion that the Sun is "unreliable" as a source. It has the highest circulation of any daily English-language newspaper in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun), and therefore is clearly doing something right. Everyone knows that comparing the Sun to the BBC is ridiculous, but it doesn't mean that The Sun isn't reliable, and it certainly doesn't mean that the BBC is reliable. And for the record, once again, the Sun was right on this story, and should never have been removed as a source until it was unproven as a source. Did anyone even consider the fact that I may have checked with numerous sources before finally picking the Sun as the most concise at that time? Interestingly, the BBC did have the story at the time, however I chose to use the Sun, maybe a mistake with hindsight, but still a choice that was made. Now I must be off to search for Sun references to have them completely removed from Wikipedia, as they aren't reliable enough.81.158.172.137 (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "It has the highest circulation of any daily English-language newspaper in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun), and therefore is clearly doing something right."...yeah, it is selling itself cheaply to the masses, and pandering to the lower classes. Sales figures does NOT make it a reliable source.  If figures are what float your boat, the Sun had an average of 3.1m readers a day over the last month while BBC's average viewing share for Saturday was 20.8% for BBC1 and 8.2% for BBC2, a total of 29% share over the two channels...Assuming 100% is 24.6m (I'm getting the figure from somewhere but not sure how reliable it is) then 29% of that is 7.1m which is more than double The Sun's performance...does that mean that it's twice as reliable?  Does that make The Guardian way way less reliable just because it has lower distribution figures?...Me, I'll stick to trusting The Sun about as far as I can throw it, and practice throwing it a hell of a lot! 78.86.230.62 (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Gabriel Thomson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070702065138/http://officialgabrielthomson.moonfruit.com/ to http://officialgabrielthomson.moonfruit.com/#/biography/4515727088
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121109024655/http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2000-08-22 to http://imdb.com/news/sb/2000-08-22
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100205090756/http://www.britishshakespearecompany.com:80/cast2009.html to http://www.britishshakespearecompany.com/cast2009.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabriel Thomson. 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 tag to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23492368-my-family-actor-cautioned-over-possession-of-class-a-drug.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620142654/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23493266-my-family-stars-caution-over-drugs.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23493266-my-family-stars-caution-over-drugs.do

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) 02:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)