Talk:Nick Gillespie
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notability
editWhat, if anything, makes this person sufficiently notable for a BLP? — Writegeist (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Is he wearing, possibly, THE BIGGEST WIG EVER on Glenn Beck 12th April 2011 ??!! If he is and is doing it for Medical reasons - OK fair enough but otherwise it is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.170.194 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
-
He is notable for being the editor of Reason magazine and an activist for "libertarianism". You know, what younger conservatives have re-branded themselves as, before they make the transition towards full blown conservative Republicanism. --174.44.124.123 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This article reads like a press release written by his publicist. Ron Thompson (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's mostly okay, but the giant quote fluffing him up was a bit much, so I pulled it. —Torchiest talkedits 02:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Question regarding qualifiers next to "journalist"
editJust wondering if there is a policy on this. Other journalists don't have qualifiers next to their "journalist" descriptor. Is this just meant as a put-down, and would that not be editorialising? Seems like all journalists should be qualifier free, or have it as "and" advocacy of whatever. --Tallard (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedians in general are terrible for doing this. It often comes across as undue labeling and framing, or as partisan "othering" and axe-grinding. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)