Talk:Peter Wilby

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Wilby. 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://archive.is/20121223221809/http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2005/no3_wilby to http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2005/no3_wilby

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) 02:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Excessive detail?
I saw this article referenced on the RfArb page. The article, as currently written due to significant adds, appears to contain substantial amounts of new and rather unnecessary detail. Frankly the older version appears more balanced. The current version gives excessive WP:WEIGHT to limited aspects of this persons career. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted it for now. Debating a single incident in someone's 50-year career for half an article seems undue at the very least, esp. as the subject's primary claim for notability is unrelated to this incident. Considering PC's edit history across Wikipedia I do not hesitate to call it tendentious editing. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Phooey - what is at work here? A whole range of aspects of the most important role in his career were reverted, for no obvious or specified reason. "rather unnecessary detail!?! - really? Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The problems are unnecessary details on the article subject based on primary sources, whose only purpose seems to have been presenting the article subject in negative light, as the adding editor has admitted to having an off-wiki conflict with the subject. This is being extensively debated at AN and ArbCom. Edits were my attempt to restore a NPOV version. I suggest you are more cautious with summarising your reverts as "restoring the details", as these details are precisely in the centre of controversy. — kashmīrī  TALK  17:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kashmiri, I have not come into conflict with Peter Wilby anywhere. It is possible I have never mentioned him in a tweet in the nearly seven years my Twitter account has existed. A COI does not apply in this case. Where primary sources are used for an opinion, rather than being precise about the date of an incident, said opinion is not likely to be out of date. Wilby's own comments, as published in the NS, are double sourced. I also used a 2016 source about the January 2002 "Kosher Conspiracy" New Statesman cover. The recently published source was deleted with the rest. Philip Cross (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Kashmiri, I have not come into conflict with Peter Wilby anywhere. It is possible I have never mentioned him in a tweet in the nearly seven years my Twitter account has existed. A COI does not apply in this case. Where primary sources are used for an opinion, said opinion is not likely to be out of date. Wilby's own comments, as published in the NS, are double sourced. I also used a 2016 source about the January 2002 "Kosher Conspiracy" New Statesman cover. The recently published source was deleted with the rest. Philip Cross (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's better leave your Twitter posts to ArbCom scrutiny. Quoting article subject in an article about them is considered PRIMARY. Quoting what others think of the subject is also PRIMARY, even if published in mainstream media. Our role here is NOT to reconstruct the subject's bio or their views as reported by their friends or political oponents but to identify and use reliable SECONDARY sources that could help us write an objective biography.
 * Also, no-one (hopefully) argues that the conver incident did not happen. It did. But your apparent attempts of giving it high prominence felt undue to me and many others. As an editor-in-chief, people sometimes need to balance various interests and pressures from within and from outside of the company. However, you cherrypicked reports on the incident so as to pass a message that the subject was an antisemite. (Sure, literally you wrote that someone termed the cover as antisemitic [what's the point of having this here anyway?], but you earlier skilfully connnected the guy's personal views to that single graphic element).
 * Your apparent obsession with connecting so many people with antisemitism is somewhat unusual, by the way.
 * See, personally, I have lived through a lot, in many countries, in many political contexts, and I am now quite sensitive - call it allergic - to manipulation. I would not pick up this topic - UK petty politics is not something I enjoy being immersed in - if not this thinly veiled attempts of manipulating public biographies of several living people. Sorry for terming it this way, I find no better word for it. Cheers, — kashmīrī  TALK  18:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Images
It is worth mentioning, and it is wrong not to mention, that 22 of the child-abuse images found on Wilby's computer, for whose possession he was given a surprisingly light suspended sentence, were 'Category A', meaning indubitable imagery of actual children being seriously harmed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66549095 It is also notable that, as an editor, Wilby always sought to suppress or minimise news stories of child abuse, though we may have to wait for someone other than the Daily Mail to produce the receipts, since Wiki has this odd beef against the DM. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * See. Bon courage (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)