User talk:Ianshart

I note that a further amendment to the Wikipedia entry for Graham Farmelo has been made by Martin Packer. It seems to me that these additions should be removed, as they do not fit with your 'due and undue weight and biographies of living people special care' criterion:

'Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, .......

Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. ......

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.'

Mr Packer identifies one error (a first name, elsewhere correct in the book), makes one clarification (inclusion of a person’s middle name). Faber has confirmed that these changes were made as soon as they were drawn to their attention, in the usual way. Mr Packer adds alleged 'omissions', all of which are unimportant to any of the substantial themes of the book; the changes amount to tiny details on three of the book's 457-page text. I have therefore deleted Mr Packer's amendments.

To give prominence to such small points is plainly unreasonable and disproportionate. Further, to allow Mr Packer to comment in this way would set a unfortunate precedent, in which Wikipedia enables commentators to highlight small points that obsess them and make personal subjective comments. The way then would be open for contributors to enter minor corrections and suggest subjective omissions to every book, article, movie, no matter how trivial these points are, thereby devaluing Wikipedia into a platform for anyone with an axe to grind.

It is worth noting that Mr Packer is hardly a neutral contributor, as is clear from the series of e-mails that he sent Dr Farmelo over the past weeks, including several sent after Dr Farmelo closed the correspondence. Mr Packer's messages have an unpleasant tone and on at least one occasion seeks to imply that nasty consequences will follow. Having requested a free copy of Dr Farmelo's 'Dirac' biography and being told by the author that this was not possible as there were no free copies left. Mr Packer wrote (capitalisation reproduced as in the original emails):

'28 September (20.50) GRAHAM, I DO SUGGEST YOU FIND ONE MORE; I HAVE WRITTEN MY CRITIQUE FOR WHEN WHEN I KNOW ONE HAS ARRIVED IN CAMBS.! MP'

'28 September (22.22) Graham, I am sympathetic to all your errors and omissions in 'Churchill', but I need to have a copy of your 'Dirac' in someone's hands in Cambs.ASAP! Martin

ps Unfortunately earlier on this year, I had no alternative but to virtually destroy another '2013' published book and damage the American author's reputation; ...'

The unpleasantness and obsessiveness of Mr Packer’s e-mails are most clearly appreciated by seeing the eleven messages that he sent Dr Farmelo from 23-30 September. I should be happy to supply a copy of their correspondence. You might also wish to see a copy of the e-mails Mr Packer sent to other parties, including the Master of Churchill College and Dr Farmelo’s publishers, Faber.

All this is to justify why I feel fully justified in removing Mr Packer's amendments.