Talk:John McClelland (businessman): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:59, 4 August 2010

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wording

The wording does not strike me as detached; it is creative writing. Wikipedia should be fairly dry (but well written) and report only factual information. Please review policy again and see how other good BLP's are written. Thanks. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is creative or wet about those words in particular, though? Your aversion to certain words often seems arbitrary and born of misplaced conceit in your own abilities, rather than anything really to do with policy. It is only with a large measure of GF that I have been able to continue with my work on the project at all. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why WP football articles generally remain in the morass? Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changed it to represent fact only. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"his consternation quickly gave way to mirth" is not neutrally worded - it reads like a novelization :) A quick rule of thumb is that if it reads like something you would find in a novel then it probably needs reworking --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do novels contain no neutral words? You are making it up as you go along! Consternation simply means anxiety or dismay, there is no 'non-neutral' property inherent to the word, so far as I am aware. Likewise mirth is a perfectly acceptable account of what's in the source. 90.207.105.117 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are editorialising issues with words like that. Leave it as it is. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What editorial content lurks behind the words "consternation" or "mirth"? How is summarising "having a laugh about it" as "mirth" anything but a neutral description of the source?

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 :::Do novels contain no neutral words? You are making it up as you go along! Consternation simply means anxiety or dismay, there is no 'non-neutral' property inherent to the word, so far as I am aware. Likewise mirth is a perfectly acceptable account of what's in the source. [[Special:Contributions/90.207.105.117|90.207.105.117]] ([[User talk:90.207.105.117|talk]]) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 ::::You are editorialising issues with words like that.  Leave it as it is. [[User:Monkeymanman|Monkeymanman]] ([[User talk:Monkeymanman|talk]]) 16:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
+:::::Really? What editorial content lurks behind the words "consternation" or "mirth"? How is summarising "having a laugh about it" as "mirth" anything but a neutral description of the source?