 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
What is the word Miaja doing at the beginning of this article? And who died at the age of 39? Certainly not Norah Jones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.141.175 ( talk) 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Those additions should be challenged. This is re-writing history. Hank has been credited as the sole writers for 70 years! You allow some unreliable source to come forward and change that? Mind you the source admits all evidence is BURNED ! And all who could challenge it are dead. This is disgraceful. No wonder why Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly source. You should ban yourself for allowing this history to be falsely re-written Rockojr2488 ( talk) 04:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am reverting all of your removals because of your violation of the hard policy WP:Neutral point of view. Binksternet ( talk) 05:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- I fully agree. The article should be reverted to its former state. And then this part can probably be added as an "Alternate history", "Authorship controversy" or something like that. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 14:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, when I came to this article a couple of days ago, I didn't notice this discussion and didn't know that that strange paragraph I saw in the lead was added very recently. I just saw that the lead section contradicted the rest of the article and tried to do something about it. Now, when I know that the paragraph was a very recent addition (and I also think that its placement in the lead violated WP:NPV), I think the article should be reverted to its former state and then this new paragraph can be added as a separate section somewhere below. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 14:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since there are objections to the new version, I reverted to the pre-October 26 one. Binksternet's October 26 addition is also retained. I just moved it to a new "Controversy" section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This article has to comply with WP:FRINGE if it is to include any material on alternative authorship that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views. Of course I am referring to the Paul Gilley material, which cannot be given undue weight disproportionate to its coverage in mainstream scholastic sources. I'm not even sure if it can be included at all. Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I added a ref to a statement that had been deleted on the grounds of WP:OR. User Binksternet immediately deleted it with no explanation other than "blog." While blogs are usually not acceptable sources for most WP pages, WP:Parity gives greater leeway in discussing fringe claims such as this, so I have reverted the revert. Tom Reedy ( talk) 06:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)