Charsea

Working on the Ianto article :)

Ok. The main problems with what you've written is it makes a lot of editorial choices and phrasings and purposefully tries to make itself "fairer" to a group who are not represented in any sources that way. For example, all the stuff about the de-gaying is complete nonsense but it still belongs in the Wikipedia article. I'm going to paste what you wrote back to you and put the unsourced editorial into bold. I apologise if I seem like I'm being harsh at all. If something's from a non-reliable source (ie. a fansite), I'll mark it in italics.

“ Moments after the death of Ianto Jones during Torchwood’s third series, a campaign to bring him back was started thanks to networking sites such as LiveJournal, Twitter and Facebook. Wales Online At the heart of this movement is www.SaveIantoJones.com, which had been pivotal in organizing the “The Great Coffee Protest.” This protest encourages fans to send coffee, along with postcards and letters of complaint, to the BBC, as tribute to Ianto’s status as the “coffee boy”. Fans have engaged in a multitude of additional protests, through groups on Livejournal and Facebook, petitions, and videos on Youtube. Doctor Who blog Via the Save Ianto Jones website, fans are given the opportunity to donate to the BBC charity “Children in Need” in honor of the character. The fundraising site states that "Though we, his devoted fans, still hope that he'll come back…we mourn him. In the series, he died saving the children of Earth; so it seems fitting to honor his memory by helping the Children in Need." As of July 31, 2009, £4,172 has been donated in his name. Coventry Telegraph

In an interview with io9 on July 28, 2009, creator Russell T Davies was asked about the controversy surrounding Ianto’s death and the consequential coffee protest. He replied “There's a campaign, because he was a coffee boy. But do you know how many packets of coffee they've received so far? Nine. So I think people writing online might sound like thousands of people, but they are nine.” io9 However, those involved in the movement believe that this number is much higher due to a post tallying the coffee sent within the community. Coventry Telegraph

When asked about the backlash in a separate interview with Michael Austiello, Russell T Davies said "It's not particularly a backlash. What's actually happening is, well, nothing really to be honest. It's a few people posting online and getting fans upset". He also stated that the character was gone for good, and that his resurrection would devalue the "entire plot." He recommended that fans who wish to stop watching the show should watch Supernatural, and to read poetry if they "can't handle drama".[46] Following these statements, the Save Ianto Jones website encouraged fans to contact only the BBC Wales and not Davies, and temporarily presented on its front page the message “Mr. Davies has made it clear in recent interviews that he views his fans with contempt, and as disposable, which saddens us" and asked not to be "abused".[59]

At Comic-Con 2009, a fan claimed that Davies “hurt” a lot of internet fans with his decision to kill Ianto, which she called "out of line.” Davies replied that he would not change his mind regarding the decision, then added "I've got to be blunt about this, there have been campaigns to send packets of coffee to BBC Wales in protest. There have been nine packets sent. I'm not taking the mickey, but that's a very small number." Executive producer Julie Gardner stated "We want people to be engaged, discuss and not always agree with us. At the end of the day, I make drama to support each author's vision. It's not a democracy. Whether people like it or not, it's storytelling."[60] Simon Brew of Den of Geek has criticised the Internet campaigns to resurrect the character, citing that the show would “lose far more credibility” if he were brought back. Brew also expressed doubt that the fans stating they would boycott a fourth series will do so. He summarised: "Torchwood now needs to continue to have the courage of its convictions, and for that to happen, the reset switch simply isn't an option."[55]

”

However, the Coventry Telepgraph sources are great finds and represent the fans voices very well. They each deserve inclusion with rebuttal, it's just a case of avoiding value-laden wording such as "given the opportunity to", "at the heart of this movement" and "thanks to". The thing about "abused" and "Supernatural"; doesn't the structure imply causality as it exists? Either way, the change isn't very offensive / it's rather minor. The main problem with the first two paragraphs is they rely on information from saveiantojones itself which is not a reliable source. The information it gives out is only reliable when Wales Online or Coventry Telegraph etc. repeat it. Pedantic, I know, but that's policy for you.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I included that AfterElton article within the Reception section under critics.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

None perse, merely an insistence to keep all editorial/flowery prose at its minimum. I think the Coventry Telegraph articles are great and should be incorporated into the existing body of text; would you like to do it? And yes, at least a dozen more sources are sure to come and when we have a greater wealth of them we can give the section a proper once over again.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you making a whole new section out of it? I really do not think the saveiantojones campaign should be distinguished from the larger "fan reaction"; it does not carry independent notability, and the two movements if we were to view them as such are not clearly delineated. I would suggest rather, add the new citations to what is said about saveiantojones and if you can, write it so that it held its own paragraph if you are really fixed on their campaign receiving particular attention. It shouldn't get its own section, though; it's still fan reaction, if a well-organised one. But yes, the information shouldn't repeat. Maybe this needs a third opinion. I'll ask Bignole (talk · contribs) what he thinks on the matter, as he's quite an experienced editor and very au fait with policy.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble imagining the completed section, so I'd suggest go ahead and do it without removing information (apart from duplicates, for which removing is of course fine!) and if I or other editors have problems we can address them as subsequent edits. Knock yourself out :).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job. Well done.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)