Talk:Dennis Reid

The section titled "Controversy" was not one related to Dennis in particular--its inclusion is completely inappropriate on his Wiki page

Dennis was asked for his expert opinion on the authenticity of countless Canadian artworks over his long career. An opinion is only that and can be proved wrong, as anyone knows. He was asked for his opinion on these paintings. The scientific evidence that they were not MacDonalds was discovered only after Dennis's death, when he obviously could make no comment on the findings or withdraw his opinion. Other art experts also thought the paintings were MacDs. Calling this a "controversy" on Dennis's Wiki page is an absurd overstatement and can only have been added by someone with a grudge. It's also interesting that this person is so attentive to the page that s/he reinstated the paragraph one day after I deleted it. The paragraph must be excised as evidence of bad faith alone, so I'm deleting it again.

I am logged in and can be reached that way if anyone is interested. 142.126.154.173 (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I was an uninvolved editor who saw you blanked a section of the page, labeling it a minor edit, with the edit summary "corrected facts". Please read WP:AGF and consider amending your comments above.

As an aside, please consider Help:Minor edit on the proper use of the minor check box.

It seems to me, if there's sourced content in an article that describes a difference of opinion about this gentleman's work it should be included even if there is a contrary view. You can "correct the facts" by citing other reliable sources that explain or express the doubts you describe above.

I take no view on whether anything needs to be "corrected", but will consider whether to reinstate the page to the status quo ante so the information doesn't get lost in the shuffle. In the mean time, perhaps other editors have a view? Oblivy (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)