Talk:Ian Levine: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(→‎Victor Kennedy: the rumors exist, and are sourced as rumors)
Line 4: Line 4:
:I'd say it's because it's based on an observation rather than any concrete proof from within the production.  
:I'd say it's because it's based on an observation rather than any concrete proof from within the production.  
:The Guardian article specifically says "rumours persist" about it, if there's any actual proof that rumours were circulating then maybe we can include ''that'' information that rumour circulated about Levine being the inspiration. But going by Wikipedia's sources it's just an interview observation and a Guardian article off handedly mentioning rumours. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 17:10, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
:The Guardian article specifically says "rumours persist" about it, if there's any actual proof that rumours were circulating then maybe we can include ''that'' information that rumour circulated about Levine being the inspiration. But going by Wikipedia's sources it's just an interview observation and a Guardian article off handedly mentioning rumours. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 17:10, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
::I'd say that the Guardian saying "rumors persist" is itself evidence that the rumors did circulate — though, of course, it is not evidence of whether the rumors had any basis. Do we have any policies or guidelines on this sort of thing? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 01:51, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:51, 25 April 2012

Victor Kennedy

Is there a particular reason why the article doesn't mention the widespread belief that Victor Kennedy in Love & Monsters was based on Levine? It's mentioned in his Wikipedia article, with two citations. If it's good enough to meet Wikipedia's BLP standards, why not mention it here? —Josiah Rowe talk to me 16:49, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's because it's based on an observation rather than any concrete proof from within the production.
The Guardian article specifically says "rumours persist" about it, if there's any actual proof that rumours were circulating then maybe we can include that information that rumour circulated about Levine being the inspiration. But going by Wikipedia's sources it's just an interview observation and a Guardian article off handedly mentioning rumours. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:10, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that the Guardian saying "rumors persist" is itself evidence that the rumors did circulate — though, of course, it is not evidence of whether the rumors had any basis. Do we have any policies or guidelines on this sort of thing? —Josiah Rowe talk to me 01:51, April 25, 2012 (UTC)