Talk:The Unfortunate Mother

COI editor
there was heavy COI editing on this cluster of articles by the Brice Stratford / sock/meat astroturfing accounts. Please look at the evidence before reverting the promotional text and removing the COI notice. Anything in hardcopy can't be trusted as this user has fabricated the content of those refs. Yes, the publication exists, but we can't trust that it says what that sock says it does unless you have it in front of you. Best, - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @CorbieVreccan, thanks for this, have familiarised myself with the situation and I do see where you're coming from, but in this instance I've accessed the article online through the Gale archive and can confirm the TLS source is genuine. It's an indepth article/review by a respected Shakespearean academic, so we can take it as kosher.
 * While you're doing sterling work on this, and clearly there is COI and socking (some of which I have actually tried to clean up in the past), Brice Stratford does seem to be notable based on the verifiable sources, which also demonstrate that some of his work in theatre is notable enough to be relevant to certain articles, and I think based on the refs that The Unfortunate Mother is one of them. The Dancing Badger (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So what do you think we should do about the COI? If we mention him and link to him at all, we have to be scrupulous about cutting puffery, inaccuracies, promotion and inappropriate tone. If he is mentioned at all it should be minimal. Please look at the exact edits done by the accounts that added his name, as they also changed other details in the articles, usually to minimize the work of others, sometimes heavily implying other productions etc have been inferior to his, etc. All of that should be fixed if not reverted outright. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, this is a lot of work. Where this particular play is concerned, however, his production was verifiably the first and so far only one, so it really is relevant to this article, and he does warrant mentioning in that context. As you say though, it's going to have to be scrupulous. I'll give the article a groundup rewrite/cleanup, and perhaps do the same with some of the other COI history ones. Will have a whack at it tomorrow after a sleep. The Dancing Badger (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)