Talk:James Bloodworth (journalist)

I started this page when I wanted to look Bloodworth up, and found that a search on James Bloodsworth, led to the transported convict James Bloodsworth (convict). Cleared that up, and started this very brief stub. hope someone who knows his work will expand it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Daily Beast article is sourced and notable. If you wish to remove it please state your reasons in the Talk Page. DO NOT DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S NOTES ON THE TALK PAGE. 92.25.199.14 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Daily Beast article is not notable and seems to have been included as part of a political point-scoring exercise.(2600:8801:3600:10B:E1B0:8C87:B898:A9BE (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC))Reply

The Daily Beast article is notable as it fits the criteria of notability under the accepted wikipedia guidelines (see WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP).

• It has had "Significant Coverage" as defined in the wikipedia guidelines.
• It is "reliable" as defined in the wikipedia guidelines.
• The sources are Secondary Sources.
• It is "Independent Of Subject".

If you disagree please explain and provide links to which part(s) of the guidelines are being breached by including it in the article. Otherwise I will be readding it. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Daily Beast article is about the Cuban government's behaviour overseas. The article's lede refers to possible Cuban troops in Syria - based on reporting by Fox News - but the article in the main is not about that. It seems bizarre to include this on Bloodworth's Wikipedia entry when it wasn't him who initially reported the story and when he merely mentions it in a piece which segways into a broader discussion.(90.193.155.1 (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC))Reply

It fits all the criteria of notability according to the guidelines. Can you provide a link to any guidelines that would be breached by including it? 92.25.199.14 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)cionReply

As you have not responded I will be adding a 'controversies' section. Please do not remove this without stating your reasons why and quoting the guidelines in the Talk page 92.4.140.96 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why is Philip Cross trying to edit this article when he has been banned from editing any articles on figures from the UK? See topic ban 83.218.151.178 (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply