Talk:Martin Firrell

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Firrell. 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/20140222130550/http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2009/november/complete-hero to http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2009/november/complete-hero

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) 09:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute
Looking immediately at the article's introduction text, it seems to be placing noble goals not simply as a stated aim of this person's endeavors, but as a factual matter/outcome. There also seems to be no note or section on controversy, which seems unusual given how long and detailed this article is, for an individual whose work is very inciteful. Plus, there's no human talk in this talk page, so basically nothing that's been written here has actually been given a detailed deconstruction.

Here's one quote: "Firrell uses language to engage directly with the public, promoting constructive dialogues" It's a bit subtle, but this puts it as it PROMOTES constructive dialogues, as a matter of fact. Another one: "Martin Firrell (born 4 April 1963 in Paris, France)[1] is a French public artist,[2] stimulating debate in public space to promote positive social change." Another statement of fact for something that is not factual.

I don't think I'm qualified to look at every detail for the main body of this article, but this is some pretty major red flags. I don't think any article about anybody should be this positive, there's always some sort of criticism worth noting, yet nothing is to be found here.

73.161.63.150 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a very helpful observation in my view. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform and I am prepared to do some editorial work on this article to address the neutrality point.

I think the point about controversy is also valuable. I have looked at sources suitable for Wikipedia but I don’t find references to controversies. At least not on first investigation. There is a lot of material about ‘debate’ but not controversy. Can you share sources and I will happily draft an appropriate section.

DrAdamLasserman (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I did some work on this article to extend its scope. I am happy to work with you and peer review any changes you make in relation to neutrality of POV.

I cannot find any reliable resources referring to controversary, so I am afraid I can't really help on that score.

Iwrotethat (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Am slightly puzzled by this NPOV tag as the article is about 14 years old. Is it a drive-by? Steinman (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right. If you look at the article history, there was a flurry of vandalism about a week ago. DrAdamLasserman (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made revisions to the main body of this article in response to the NPOV tag and would appreciate any peer review of the changes. DrAdamLasserman (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

IMHO this does improve the article's tone, particularly the opening. The lack of follow up on this tag, and the earlier vandalism of the article makes me believe this was a drive-by tagging intended to undermine the authority of the article. That said, I think the changes you have made improve the article considerably. Publicrealm (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's reasonably clear that this tag was a drive-by and should be removed. In the same timeframe the main article was serially vandalised by anonymous users with additions like 'Many consider him to be a pretentious twat' and 'Mr Smelly Bellend'. The addition of the tag is the only wikipedia activity by the anonymous user responsible.DrAdamLasserman (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Concision
I have edited this article to make it more economical and remove some repetitions. Whilst quotes from the artist were well-sourced, I felt there were too many for an encyclopedia. I welcome peer review though. DrAdamLasserman (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The edits you've made are quite extensive but I do think it makes the article more readable. Publicrealm (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)