Talk:David Walsh (writer)
| 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
List of film reviews from Walsh
editThis hardly seems an exhaustive list of the film reviews written by Mr. Walsh in the last 10 or 15 years (or more). These are finely crafted and tremendously informative: they deserve to be made availiable on his Wikipedia page.
I would suggest an alphabetical list by movie title (as was available in the earlier WSWS format), as well as a list by year of film release. These, in addition to a complete list of reviews available at WSWS.org The link currently availble here only has a few dozen reviews.
A link might also be provided, if not letters-to-the-editor, then to at least those exchanges that Mr. Walsh has had with selected critics of his reviews.
The multiple reviews and exchanges on the film Titanic (1997) come to mind. 36hourblock (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't the way that other critics are presented. It's really up the Mr. Walsh and the WSWS to present their content, not wikipedia. However, his interviews are of significant public interest, especially where the subject has given few interviews to mainstream sources. --Nixin06 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that listing Walsh's film reviews violates WR - mea culpa.
You say it's up to Walsh and WSWS to present their content. If you go to Thomas Frank, you'll see that I've provided a list of representative quotes - my cherry-picked selections - to convey Frank's views from two of his books. Does Wiki object to that? I've also done the same for Edmund Wilson, offering a small selection of his commentary on the writing of his contemporaries. Does this violate WR that you know of?
Generally, in the articles I write on US History, I only include quotes that are included in the mainstream sources I am citing. Is that the only proper grounds for including a quotation? I have my doubts. 36hourblock (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)