Talk:Stephen Henderson (journalist)

Quoting Henderson
Regarding this edit: All we have are two lines that he wrote. I could turn to any piece he's written and pull a line and then go to twitter and pull another line, and the inclusion of those lines would be just as valid. We don't do that. There needs to be a reason to include this, and as it is written, there is none at all. -- Irn (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting, you could have improved the article or gone to discussion. Instead, you deleted sourced material with no justification. That being said, I'm happy to discuss it here. A prize-winning editor advocating violence, even just doing so for shock value, seems pretty notable for me. As WP:PUBLICFIGURE says, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I'm happy to re-write it to provide more context to the controversy. Looking back, it seems that my edit may have been considered original research. However, to condescend with a "we don't do that" when reporting on a controversial statement by a writer is simply false.MKil (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)MKil

Semi-protected for three days
... in order to halt the edit war over how to describe Henderson's firing from the Free Press. The article at the point of this protection describes the reason for the firing in exactly the terminology used in the source. If there are alternative wordings (and soruces) they should be discussed here rather than edit-warred into the article. In proposing any alternative wording, please have regard for WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and make sure no words or descriptions are used that are beyond what can be rigorously supported by reliable sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)