Talk:Philip Lymbery

Time to start an article about Farmageddon?
Should we start an article of its own about the book? There are resources online:
 * The Guardian (review)
 * The Guardian (review)
 * New Statesman
 * London Evening Standard (review)
 * BBC interview
 * Times
 * Daily Mail (article by the author of the book)NewJohn (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * + The Telegraph  (review) NewJohn (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See Farmageddon_(book)NewJohn (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to start an article about Philip Lymbery's twitter following?
There is clearly a concerted attempt to prevent this information from being disclosed yet there is fairly conclusive evidence that all is not right with Mr Lymberys twitter following This is not going to go away so why not get it out in the open once and for all?

www.twittercounter.com/@philip_ciwf www.fakers/statuspeople.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBillyGruff (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * BigBillyGruff (talk), Thanks for leaving a message here rather than reverting the article again.


 * There's no concerted effort to prevent the information from being disclosed regarding Philip Lymbery or his Twitter account. There's definitely a concerted effort to prevent unsourced information from being added to his (or any other) article.   That's just how Wikipedia works -- information needs to be verifiable through independent, reliable sources.


 * I did a fairly extensive search looking for cites re: controversy regarding Philip Lymbery's Twitter account and didn't come up with anything. The link you've provided doesn't substantiate your comment -- it just goes TwitterCounter, which Philip Lymbery may or may not be using.


 * If you can find suitable references, it should be written as a new section, for example "Controversy." It doesn't belong in the section about his career -- it's about his interaction with social media, which is distinct from work.  Also, the language needs to be neutral and strictly factual, without editorializing. Something like "In 2014, the Guardian reported that Lymbery had bought Twitter followers."


 * I hope that's of help. Again, thanks for addressing the issue here.  Julie JSFarman (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)