Talk:Pete Clifton

Untitled
I'm wondering if this should be merged with BBC News Online, as other than the Directors-General he appears to be the only member of the BBC who isn't a presenter with their own article. I haven't put a merge tag on it because I'm open to other suggestions and opinions on this. Thryduulf 01:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's an omission that editors don't have entries. They are the real power in terms of what gets broadcast (think of the phrase 'Editorial Control'). So while you might see the presenters, all they are actually doing is reading a script. Editors choose what news you actually get to see. So their politics and their backgrounds are important.

I'd vote for less celebrity fluff and more useful information in this one. raining girl 16:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Source
FWIW, Pete Clifton writes that he himself wrote the initial article... Apus apus 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say he wrote the article, just that he changed incorrect information. He writes, "Having said that, I think I’ve broken the rules once too. Some time back I noticed Wikipedia had the wrong information about who was in charge of BBC News Interactive. So I wrote a couple of paragraphs about myself which is by all accounts not good form in the Wiki world. Whoops, I’ll leave you to go in and edit that one.". Moltovivo 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And we should be clear: Wikipedia discourages autobiographical edits, but there's no policy violated, here. Double-checking the text would make sense, of course. In fact this article could use quite a bit of love, as it's not up to Wikipedia's standards in its current state. -Harmil 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He did say he wrote the article. He says thet Wikipedia had the wrong information about who had his current job - in other words there wasn't an entry for him but for his predecessor; as a result he write a "couple of paragraphs" about himself.  In other words, the article.  Regardless of whether or not he wrote it, I question whether this entry deserves to exist.  I know it has gone through a proposal for deletion before but, let's face it, who is he?  Is he notable enough for an entry?  I think not. 87.127.44.154 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article goes back to December 2004. If he created it, he did so with, as he called it, "incorrect information" which needed to be corrected.  I can see correcting an article about yourself if it contains objectively incorrect data.  If he added text to the effect that we editors should all be in awe of him as a professional, okay then I might have an issue with him.  At this point, nah.  And he owned up to it.  Denimadept 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * asking 'who is he?' is rather odd - he's the editor of one of the most important and heavily-used websites in the world, and that clearly makes him notable - indeed, for him not to have an entry would be odd. Billthom 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Tags useful?
Yeah, so he did write the original article himself. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that warrants those three tags, though. The article is factual and reasonably well-written. I suggest we remove all tags. Junes 19:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits
Apologies, I'm a novice at this but how does one remove "He seems to be a pretty nice kind of guy- recently quickly attoning for a daft error the BBC made re a story about internal edits to Wikipedia"? It's on the article but I can't see it in the edit page?


 * It was removed.--FeralOink (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)