Talk:Martin T. Barlow
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Sergeant Cribb in topic Genealogy information removed.
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Genealogy information removed.
editUser Flying Fische insists on re-adding the following info to this article.
- Barlow is the son of Andrew Dalmahoy Barlow FRCP (1916-2006) and his wife Yvonne Rosalind (née Tanner). He is the grandson of Erasmus Darwin Barlow, and his wife Nora (née Darwin), through whom he is a great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. He is the nephew of Horace Barlow (also FRS and Fellow of Trinity).
(Similar info is added to his other contributions). This is genealogical information that it not appropriate to the article. I've removed it twice, but don't want to fall foul of the 3RR so I'm listing it here for discussion. There is a clear consensus for this info to NOT be included. It is basically directory information, and does not add to notability. I would be willing to accept cases such as a famous person being in the same field as their parent/s, such as is common in acting.
I also object to this user labelling any edit he disagrees with as vandalism. Suggestions please.--Dmol (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree entirely. The user is already under investigation at AN/I here. The-Pope (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Two lines covering a very distinguished distant ancestor, & his uncle, seems fine to me. Isn't the consensus is not to include large family trees, except for royalty etc? I agree the articles are sloppy & his attitude poor; but he has also had some silly AFD's launched against his stuff. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is entirely appropriate. I don't know what the problem either the Pope (who's clearly not Mr Ratzinger) and have but basically they are both following me around. I am acting constructively. Perhaps they should go and do something constructive themselves instead of conspiring to vandalise Wikipedia by removing valid material. Flying Fische (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have restored the genealogy which was removed with an explanation of WP:NOTINHERITED. The latter is a notability criterion appropriate for AFD discussions. Wikipedia:Notability is clear that "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." Now, is there a reason not to describe this person's relationship to the Darwin–Wedgwood family? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)