Talk:Stuart Campbell (journalist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Article milestones
August 12, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept

Contents

[edit] Random Comments

This material is from Stuart Campbell's website, World of Stuart. Therefore, while it's definitely factually accurate, it might be a copyright violation, and in any case, it isn't encyclopaedic. :) Spottedowl 13:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is much better now that it has been written by someone else than Stuart Campbell. JIP | Talk 17:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hardly encyclopaedic

His desperate effort to be witty and amusing is admirable but I agree this doesn't really qualify as encyclopaedic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.174.104 (talk • contribs) .

<- Insert similar sentence designed to alude to writers superior wit and that perhaps a better word than 'admirable' could've been chosen but had to say something? - Crash—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.222.164 (talk • contribs) .

Given that absolutely nothing here cites its sources, should the whole thing be removed? It's basically a puff piece. --Jumble Jumble 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is clearly written by Campbell himself, as is the second comment in this section. It needs a full re-write. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.248.155.14 (talk • contribs).

The subject has publicly denied having any connection to the writing of the entry, and unless there is evidence to the contrary, these claims are unsupportable and borderline libellous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.217.135 (talk • contribs). --81.179.78.4 04:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree this doesn't really qualify as encyclopaedic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.174.104 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] This entry should be retained

I have been reading Campbell's work since Issue 1 of Amiga Power. He is a clearly notable figure within the computer games world, an excellent writer, with strong, clearly-articulated opinions. He possesses critical faculties rare in the world of computer games reviews, which makes him stand out from the vast majority of reviewers in this field. He has earned his notability by becoming a figure relied upon by many readers for independent and trustworthy analysis of video games. It seems that he does not get much magazine work these days, precisely because of his fierce independence, although he continues to produce reviews, as well as non-games writing, on his website, etc. I say this as somebody who has no connection with Campbell other than around 16 years of reading his work, and I am certain there are many others in my position. Iqcumber 07:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article should clearly be retained. It just needs a rewrite and some citations for a few of the claims made. --Zagrebo 09:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's missing loads of citations. Quite a few are clearly POV and probably won't be able to be sourced. Others won't be able to be sourced as they reference comments made in magazines years ago. It's an atrocious article as it stands.

I point you to the text at the top of this page: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". Seeing as that is most of the article, it would be absolutely justifiable to remove almost the complete text of the article. If you don't want this to happen then you must provide properly sourced biographical information instead of the current content. I'll give it a couple of weeks. Jumble Jumble 13:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

although could use some citations, it is hampered as well, as some sources were removed from wikipedia itself, like 0% for that megadrive game, that was ezxplained in the entry for that game, with sources, but was removed... why do people do that Romanista 06:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He really isn't all that notable. All he's done is write a few games reviews in now defunct magazines. I fail to see why this article is in any way useful or relevant to anyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mayor mike haggar (talk • contribs).

I fail to see anything "controversial" in the entry at all. It appears to contain almost exclusively verifiable empirical facts.What is "controversial" in it? 83.67.217.135 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've removed all the unsourced and unverifiable information from the page. Please do not add any more material without citing proper sources - Wikipedia is extremely concerned with making sure that information on living persons is accurate. --87.194.95.18 09:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Then lets discuss here what needs to go and what should stay. A great deal of the information (such as his working at Sensible and the publications he has written for) is detailed on his website and there's no excuse for removing this. Editors have taken a while putting this page together. Yes, it needs citations but blanking it causes people not to know what's there and therefore not to find citations for it. If there's anything that we can't find any citations for then it should go. That's different from anonymous IPs showing up to blank the page. --Zagrebo 11:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of this page

Please stop blanking this page. A great deal of the information pertaining to Campbell's work at Sensible Software etc was mentioned on the WoS page that the stub cited for his living in Bath so the "we're only leaving stuff with a citation" excuse is hogwash. By all means request citations for the contentious stuff and then we can discuss what should be removed here if no one can find citations but can certain people please stop blanking this page under the excuse of improving it. It's clearly starting to annoy some editors, myself included. --Zagrebo 11:25, 15 June

2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Sections

I suggest plonking any removed sections here until they can be cited. I don't think we should cut any sections out unless they're mostly-full of contentious information. --Zagrebo 11:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • the more controversy thing is clearly sourced, AP2, which is referred to is a whole site about the history of ap, including those dissent issues , so i reinstate that section Romanista 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Acclaim

Other accolades have included being dubbed "Britain's best games journalist" by long-running technology website Need To Know in April 1999,[citation needed] and - perhaps not unrelatedly - "Despicable... universally hated by the games industry." by developer Jez San in trade magazine MCV in October 2002.)[citation needed]

This next one needs some citations - there must be an article about it somewhere! I also think it might work better in the Cannon Fodder entry since it's really about that game: --Zagrebo 12:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More controversy

Issue 32 of Amiga Power was originally to be published with a picture of a poppy representing the game Cannon Fodder, reviewed that month. However, the Daily Star noticed the cover in an advert in another newspaper and saw the use of the poppy to illustrate a computer war game as an insult to those who had died in the war. [1] The Royal British Legion objected to the use of the poppy as well, which they saw as their "trademark", and consequently filed a lawsuit against the magazine, Sensible Software and even Amiga Corporation themselves, demanding an apology and a promise that the poppy would not be used in any promotions of the game. The game artwork and magazine cover were both hastily censored by their publishers, without the assent or knowledge of the magazine's staff or the game's developers.[citation needed]

In the magazine, Campbell had written the supposedly throwaway comment "Old soldiers? I wish them all dead" (in fact a line taken from a song by The Wonder Stuff, on their album Construction for the Modern Idiot) in response to the Legion's actions, which the Star and the Legion took particular offence to.[citation needed]

On the AP2 website, regarding the issue, Campbell wrote the following:

“ Freedom of speech, eh? Let's hope no one went to the trouble of dying for it, or anything.

The furore surrounding CF was symptomatic of one of the less attractive national traits of the British - the kneejerk reaction, regardless of the facts. The facts here are that Cannon Fodder was - in the admittedly narrow surroundings of the world of computer games - probably the most sensitive addressing of the issue of war ever seen. From the individually-named soldiers in the graves and the roll-call of the fallen after every level to the poignant connotations of the title itself, it's in fact, ironically, the only game I can ever recall to treat its protagonists as anything other than cannon fodder. That no one bothered to notice that, even with the assistance of the instruction manual, is perhaps the saddest and certainly the most infuriating aspect of the entire episode.

 ”

[edit] Weird England

I've removed the following:

A number of these articles have subsequently been taken up for publication in the book "Weird England", due to be published by Sterling Publishing in early 2007.

- because the book has now been published and searching the internet gives no verification that any of Campbell's articles are included. --194.203.201.92 10:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible reference

[2] - BBC's Dave Green describes Campbell as a "forthright games reviewer". A trivial mention, I suppose, but supports #1 of WP:BIO for creative professionals. Marasmusine 07:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A few more mentions here: [3] [4] [5]
The first one I will be using as a reference in the article immediately, the third one unfortunately requires registration (and bugmenot doesn't work for it), and the second one seems to be him talking mainly about Street Fighter II. --Dreaded Walrus t c 11:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There's probably enough coverage there for FairPlay to have an article of its own. Marasmusine 11:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of cited material

Regarding this edit. We have a citation for it, so please don't remove it. Read the citation. --Dreaded Walrus t c 13:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding repeated removal of {{fact}} tags: [6] [7] [8]
{{fact}} doesn't mean that it is incorrect, rather that we need a citation for it. If, as you say here, it's a "matter of printed record", then the solution is simple. Cite those sources! :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 13:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
And again for the removal of cited material. If you're not willing to discuss this, then please remember that there is a citation for this fact. You cannot remove {{fact}} tags at one end and remove cited material at the other. You say it is inaccurate. What reason do you have to say that? The citation (which I'm assuming you haven't read) clearly has a quote from Campbell saying this. Again, what reason do you have not to believe the source, which had an interview with Campbell himself? --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
All of the "fact" tags regarding, for example, the Cannon Fodder story are already cited in detail via the existing link to AP2's coverage of the matter. If people are going to edit this page they ought to at least read it properly first before they start demanding citations for things that already have them. 83.67.217.135 21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In an ideal article, every factual statement would have a source. If that same source has already been used once in the article, then just use it again. Don't expect other people to want to do this. Just provide the same citation, if it's already used. Look, for example, at the references of today's featured article. Many of the references are used multiple times. If someone says something needs a source, just provide that source where the fact tag was. And with regards to this edit summary, I'd like to point you to this edit, where Marasmusine not only converted the external link to an internal link, but removed the peacock terms. You then partially reverted him (an administrator), and reverted again, after 81.179.78.4 reverted your changes, mentioning consensus. As in, the consensus of himself and User:Marasmusine. I'm no longer interested in really participating in this edit war, as it seems you are unwilling to cooperate on most issues here, and it's leaving me feeling quite bitter. --Dreaded Walrus t c 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to co-operate, and have repeatedly made entirely civil requests for explanations (eg why is it not notable that the subject is the only person ever entrusted by a major publication with the sole compilation of their all-time-greatest list, a flagship feature for any magazine?; why is Wiki's own definition of "historian" not applicable here, since it clearly applies to the subject's work on Retro Gamer?), which still await answers. Simply re-editing the entry without explanation invites no more respect than undoing such edits, and in the face of the clear vandalism which has been the aim of MOST recent editing of this entry, I see no reason to be less dogged in my efforts to protect this entry than others are to damage it.83.67.217.135 21:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
83.67.217.135, I don't understand your repeat removals of the BBC citation. Marasmusine 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Note, there's also ongoing discussion here. --Dreaded Walrus t c 21:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
So, he doesn't like the use of the word 'criticism' and so removes the whole sentence and citation? Really not the way to go about editing a page. Marasmusine 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not criticism, and the entry is therefore inaccurate, and my understanding is that accuracy is Wikipedia's goal. The relevance of it to this subject's entry escapes me anyway, since outlawing the "blocks" was never one of the aims of FairPlay. If you consider the citation still of value without the sentence, it seems reasonable to reinstate it, but the sentence is both irrelevant and wrong.83.67.217.135 21:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I see your point of view. I will think of another way to integrate the reference, since it's certainly coverage from a reliable source. However, I still disagree with the phrasing "the only known time that such a list has been compiled for a major gaming publication by a single individual." How would we know that? Original research, or do you have source that states this is the only such list? All we can say is what was stated in YS, that it was a list "of what was considered to be the best ZX Spectrum games." (to paraphrase) Marasmusine 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
One of Wikipedia's stated policies, I've read in recent days, is "assume good faith". No comparable all-time-greatest charts - be they those in Edge, Amiga Power, PC Gamer, on Gamespot, IGN or anywhere else - have been singly compiled. All credit multiple authors, and by simple common sense it is extremely unusual for such a list to be created by one individual. The YS one is unique, is clearly notable, and the statement should be taken as such UNLESS there are some grounds to believe it to be wrong, in which case they should be cited. Proving a negative, on the other hand, is extremely difficult. 83.67.217.135 22:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Assume Good Faith refers to assuming good faith on the part of other editors (which Marasmusine recently did when he retracted his warnings from earlier). It does not suggest "assuming" that something in an article is correct unless it is proven wrong. We must use reliable sources and provide citations for all factual statements, in an ideal article. --Dreaded Walrus t c 22:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why is the assumption of good faith seemingly not applicable to my edits, including the addition of what is a true fact which nobody has actually disputed? I don't claim to be making this an "ideal article", only to be improving it in the face of a great deal of malicious vandalism. I don't have time to locate online evidence for every Top 100 list ever published in print magazines, but they nevertheless HAVE been published and are a matter of record for anyone interested enough to look. 83.67.217.135 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Good faith is being applied to your edits (indeed, some might say too much good faith), which is why you currently have no warnings on your page, even though you appear to have violated WP:3RR ([9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Violating 3RR is not something which usually warrants good faith, as it is usually an automatic ban no matter who does it. In the past even admins have been blocked for violation of 3RR. You must understand, that noone is asking you to find every top 100 list. That is not what citing sources on Wikipedia is about. If our article says "In 1991 he compiled the Your Sinclair official top 100, the only known time that such a list has been compiled for a major gaming publication by a single individual.", we must find a reference that says that the 1991 Your Sinclair official top 100 is the only known time that such a list has been compiled for a major gaming publication by a single individual, or words to that effect. If we don't do that, it would be original research. Even if we were to look at all the top 100s ourselves, and determine ourselves that that was the only time, it would be original research. Do you see? --Dreaded Walrus t c 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Was that so hard? 83.67.217.135 07:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Morning, everyone. To say it is a unique list is a bold claim. Bold claims require verification, preferably from an independent source. Don't get me wrong, I believe it is a unique list, but our opinions and beliefs mean nothing in article space, we would need an independent source explicitly stating the list's uniqueness. Marasmusine 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
We'd all PREFER those, I'm sure, but proving a negative is extremely difficult to do. I also doubt that other encyclopaedias insist on having all their content verified by OTHER encyclopaedias, and prefer to trust their editors to do their job accurately... (Note: I have nevertheless not reverted the entry.)83.67.217.135 11:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not just a preference, it's a Wikipedia policy. No-one said the other source need be another encyclopedia either. Obviously other encyclopedia have standards of verifibility also, rather than allowing contributors to enter whatever arbitary claims they want, which is what you seem to be trying to achieve here (e.g. repeatedly labelling Campbell a historian with no references whatsoever). --81.179.78.4 11:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Historian" Label

As has been pointed out by myself and two other editors now, repeatedly inserting this into the article without a reference is unnacceptable. Your vague justification for doing so (something about the label complying with Wikipedia's definition of a historian) is invalid, as has been explained multiple times now. A) Wikipedia is a tertiary source and therefore not acceptable. B) Even then, putting 2 and 2 together is original research - you need a source specifially referring to Stuart Campbell as a historian, and given the contentious nature of this label, you would probably require several of them. --81.179.78.4 11:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice it's been added now with the reference Stuart mentioned on his forum: Retro Gamer referring to him as their "resident historian". Personally, I don't think this is an adequate reference for such a claim. Something along the lines of "described by Retro Gamer as their resident historian" elsewhere in the article, in relation to his knowledge of retro games, might be appropriate - although superfluous, but simply stating he is a historian based on this utterly flimsy line out of a magazine doesn't meet WP:V, and the fact editors are being influenced on how to edit the article by personal contact with Campbell is bordering on WP:CoI. --81.179.96.218 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, will move it further down. Marasmusine 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yeah I've no problem with it phrased like that. --81.179.96.218 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I take your point about COI though, especially since I've posted on his forum now, and I know he's unhappy with the article. Might be best if I make no more edits on this article. Marasmusine 14:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: "Previously they bitched that it didn't matter that I WAS quite evidently a historian, I had to have a reference for it. Now there's a reference they're still whining and looking for other loopholes by which they can either deny or belittle the inescapable fact." That's not actually the case. There was a hypothetical argument that even supposing Campbell was a historian, it would still require a reference - in order to get through to the other anon editor (possibly Stuart himself) that was making the disruptive edits. But it was also stated that such a potentially contentious claim would require either a very good source or several of them, and I did mention in my original reverts that I didn't think writing retro games articles qualifies one as a historian - although that is just personal opinion and actually makes little difference to whether the statement should be included or not (verifiability, not truth) - something which seems to be lost on Campbell. --81.179.96.218 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of fact tags

Again this is unacceptable. In this [15] instance, the following references only provide isolated cases of Campbell giving an uncompromising review score; they do not provide any evidence that supports the claim that he was known for giving out harsh scores - which is what the sentence with the tag is stating.

In this [16] instance, you repeatedly claim that a reference already exists for this claim, but rather than insert it in the appropriate place in the article, you remove the tag instead. The only reference in that paragraph contains no evidence of the claim being made, so I can only assume that the reference you refer to is somewhere else in the article entirely, or simply doesn't exist (ala the claim you made that Dreaded Walrus left a citation for the "historian" label, which would seem to be completely untrue). --81.179.78.4 12:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:[17], so this is what you were referring to. Dreaded Walrus wikilinked the "historian" text, but that in absolutely no way constitutes a citation. It's clear you have little understanding or experience of editing Wikipedia. --81.179.78.4 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. At no point did I provide a citation for "historian". I requested one, which was reverted both times. See my three edits: [18] [19] (revert). [20] [21] (revert). [22] (third edit simply wikilinked historian, and even that doesn't exist in the current version). Anyway, well done 81.179.78.4 for not reverting again and instead taking it to this discussion page. --Dreaded Walrus t c 12:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki defines "historian" thus: "A historian is an individual who studies history and who writes on history. The person may be an authority (or expert) over history, but this is not a requirement. Most generally, historians are the writers, compilers and narrators of history." This is absolutely clearly true in the case of the subject, and is cited more specifically further on in the entry, in the reference to Retro Gamer magazine. Indeed, by Wiki's terms everyone who writes for Retro Gamer is probably a historian, but the subject's work in particular for the magazine is solely and explicitly concerned with correcting inaccurate history. What will be next for the comically-anal hairsplitters mostly editing this entry while a million worse ones go unmolested? The opening line lists the subject as Scottish, but is completely without the slightest shred of documentary proof for this alleged fact. I DEMAND that someone provides a online reference to a birth certificate. 83.67.217.135 12:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You laugh, but it took a whole year to get Tim Westwood's birthday on his page despite multiple media sources. Someone DID eventually have to go get a birth certificate copy. Duds 2k 16:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, that's that fixed. Now for every other entry on Wikipedia. 83.67.217.135 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This is like talking to a brick wall. I just explained why none of that (Wikipedia's article for historian, and your reasoning for why Campbell fits its criteria) is relevant here, due to Wikipedia official policy (WP:V, WP:OR). Although not an official policy, you might also want to check WP:POINT while you're at it. --81.179.78.4 13:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
No you didn't. It is NOT "without a reference". It is referenced later in the entry. It is referenced, indeed, by the simple fact of the existence of Retro Gamer. Your edits to this entry are malicious and petty, and I have no respect for your views. I have shown that I'm happy to listen to the reasoned arguments of other editors, but you are merely a vandal and are worthy of no such respect, and I will continue to endeavour to protect this entry against your childish, single-purpose attacks. 83.67.217.135 13:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the section above this, on this page. The existence of Retro Gamer isn't a reference in itself for the reasons given; it's original research. How can you claim to be happy to listen to the arguments of other editors when you're repeatedly reverting their edits (in violation of 3RR)? --81.179.78.4 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop being so ludicrous. And I have reverted some edits until either compromises were reached or valid reasons explained, rather that your habit of simply stating something to be so without backing it up in any way. Your objection to "historian" had nothing to do with "original research", or you would have added a citation request rather than deleting it. You are transparently merely attempting to find loopholes by which to vandalise this entry. Your bleating about "consensus" is hilarious - ONE other editor has, very weakly, expressed a similar concern, but by his own admission did not feel strongly enough to argue the matter. 83.67.217.135 13:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
In many cases I have simply added requests for citations (which you have repeatedly removed without good reason) when in fact official policy on biographies of living persons states: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". Several people have taken issue with you stating that Campbell is a historian, so clearly it warrants removal unless you can find a reliable source (i.e. not another justification based on Retro Gamer and Wikipedia's own historian article) declaring him as such. --81.179.78.4 13:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is your contention? That writing about the history of video games is not history? That Retro Gamer does not exist? That the subject does not write for it? Please explain precisely what your objection is regarding your dispute of this entry, preferably free of the vague meaningless nonsense you've spouted above. I can do this for as long as you can. TragicHeroine 14:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've explained precisely what the issue is. Presumably your failure to understand it is testament to your failure to understand official Wikipedia policy regarding these matters. --81.179.78.4 14:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It's really easy. We describe Campbell as a historian if a reliable source has described him as a historian. And that's it. Marasmusine 07:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's all I've been trying to get through to 83.67.217.135 throughout this debate. --81.179.78.4 07:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This is what I, too, was trying to get through to him, when I added a citation needed tag, which was added, removed (with an ad hominem attack), added again, explaining that it wasn't a request for citation on his residence, but on "historian", and removed again. At that point I kind of gave up. I do not find edit wars particularly fruitful, and was not willing to get my first ban over one. --Dreaded Walrus t c 12:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
We're all agreed then :> Marasmusine 12:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

This is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of handing out a bunch of WP:3RR blocks, I've protected the page. Another admin can unprotect it at any time, which won't hurt my feelings in the least, but for now everyone needs to step back and cool off. - KrakatoaKatie 14:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The current revision is free from the worst of the unreferenced information being added by 83.67.217.135 (AKA TragicHeroine), so I have no problem with the disputed tag being removed now provided everyone else feels it's no longer warranted. --81.179.78.4 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. I'll make a section below for requested edits, as only registered users can edit. And for what it's worth, I actually requested protection a while ago, see here. I'll remove that request now it has been protected anyway. --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested edits

List any requested edits here, so that a registered user can make the changes if deemed appropriate.

[edit] FairPlay Founder

The article claims that campbell founded the fairplay campaign, however the campaign's own website clearly states here (http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/press2english.htm) that he did not. As such surely this section is unnescesarry, if he is only involved with the campaign from outside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.185.248 (talk • contribs).

I have adjusted the text accordingly. We should still have this section, since the press have been associating him with the campaign, per the opening sentence of WP:Verifiability. Marasmusine 12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death Threats

Campbell claims on this forum that "AP didn't actually print any CF death threat letters as far as I recall. WIKI IN WRONGNESS NON-SHOCK." [23]. Obviously, a forum isn't a legitimate source, but seeing as this statement in the article doesn't have a source either, maybe it should be removed unless one can be found.

Just to confirm, this is the statement I refer to: "This resulted in Campbell receiving death threats from enraged Star readers, which the following month's issue of Amiga Power printed in its letters page."

--81.179.78.4 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite right. I have removed that statement (and the preceding one, also unreferenced.) Marasmusine 14:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
And now he's accused us of "being on a belittling mission", because we changed the thing about him founding it. If someone's a member there, can they link him to the press release saying he didn't found it? It's not us deliberately trying to put him down. :( --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand the logic of his accusation considering we're just stating what it says on his own (assuming his claim of founding and operating FairPlay are correct) website. I also have a suspicion that 83.67.217.135/TragicHeroine was in fact Stuart, based on Stuart's knowledge of the article's edit history and the similar writing style and accusations. --81.179.78.4 14:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the revised statement is about as neutral it can be, based on the sources (which we didn't write!) I certainly don't want to belittle Stuart, he's always been one of my favourite game reviewers. Marasmusine 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict with Marasmusine) I've just emailed him regarding it, using the email address he provided with User:Rev. Stuart Campbell. I imagine he'll post it on the forum or something, to ridicule those awful Wiki-nazis. The email is provided below:
Hi. I used the "email this user" function on Wikipedia's software to send this to you, as I just thought I'd mention one thing. The reason we removed the thing about you founding it (and I believe you DID found it), is because the official website states that you didn't found it. See the press release here: http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/press2english.htm
"One of the quotes used to illustrate FairPlay's point was written by veteran games journalist Stuart Campbell. Despite lazy, unresearched claims by the industry to the contrary, Stuart Campbell did not instigate or devise the FairPlay campaign, or design the FairPlay website"
So even though we have BBC News and the like all saying it was your brainchild, and describing you as the founder, we have to acknowledge what the official site says. Hence, our current version is like this:
"Campbell is often reported as being a founding member of the campaining group FairPlay.[10] According to the group themselves, Campbell did not instigate or devise of the campaign, although some of his quotes were used to illustrate their point.[11]"
While I personally feel you DID found the campaign, it is alarming to see that the group itself denies that. Feel free to get back to me on this, either by email or on my talk page on Wikipedia.
And yes, I assumed good faith. ;) --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I just dropped a note on the forum too. Apparently I was already a member (I joined 3 years ago? Boggle) Marasmusine 14:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I notice Stuart's now edited his post to reflect this: "[the] idea was instigated and devised by that forum thread, but formalising, organising and publicising it under the banner of FP was done by the two of us".
I'm not entirely sure what he means (an idea can be devised via a thead but not by one, there has to be an individual or individuals that come up with the idea), but it might be some confirmation that the FairPlay site's claims are somewhat accurate. --81.179.78.4 15:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's so simple. Stuart Campbell founded the campaign Fairplay, but not the Fairplay campaign. Don't you get it, you fools. There's no contradiction at all! None! Of course it's not a deliberately misleading press release that was put out to deflect justifiable critiscism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.185.248 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Historian Label

Can this be reverted for now for the reasons mentioned above? Hopefully this can be resolved here, but if other editors determine that the statement and its reference is valid then I will have to file an RfC - nothing personal, but it's just far to bold a claim on far too flimsy evidence to be left in the opening paragraph like that. --81.179.96.218 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer in the opening paragraph. See these edits. --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird England

The source for this sentence: "A number of these articles appear, amongst work by other authors, in a book collection entitled "Weird England" [8], edited by Matt Lake" links to an Amazon page which lists Matt Lake as the author. Googling for "weird england" "stuart campbell" find two pages - this article, and a page on Answers.com that has been copied and pasted from this article. I'm therefore removing it as it still doesn't have a confirmatory source. --81.151.94.8 12:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been re-inserted, with again a link to the Amazon page which does not mention Stuart Campbell anywhere. It is impossible to find anything confirming his involvement in this book online, so I am removing the sentence again. --194.203.201.92 (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)