Talk:Bill Neukom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

I encourage somebody who actually is impressed with Neukom to add more. I saw him on CSPAN with Greta Wodele this AM and was not at all impressed with him. This article is my best attempt at neutrality. I guess I think that this guy should have a biog in wikipedia, however, I don't really like lawyers very much and don't aprove of the kind of meddling that he seems to be involved in with Pakistan, so a lot of what maybe should be here is not stuff I can add right now in an unbiased manner. I have been told already that someone does not like this article, however if they can improve it and build upon what I have started they should, which makes more sense to me than deleting it.

I may be able to add a bit more later, but someone else should add more stuff too. His status as the present President of the American Bar Association seems to me to indicate that he ought to have at least more mention in wikipedia beyond simply his name in a list. His meddling with Pakistan is bad news right now from my perspective, but since I think my POV ought not to be too much in this article...my guess is that somebody else ought to give me some ideas here, or better yet add the relevant info in an unbiased way. My sources to date are the ABA website and a website about Dartmouth Trustees. John5Russell3Finley 15:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI tag

I don't get the point of the tag. Reads like a resume: well, a stub if it is to be added to and not just be a glob of bad prose will at its inception be a lot like a resume. Maybe, after you have quite a bit more than 10 sentances that are coherently able to flow together you can consider an attempt to make it into prose. However, I honestly find the idea of forcing stuff into prose when the thing is incomplete to be a serious waste (and when I am working on it people who do this to the stuff I am working on are a nuisance). Sometimes it is hard to disect some prose, and it can be very difficult to coherently add stuff into the denser sort especially if it is too tightly written. From my perspective this article is not yet ready to become prose. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So you agree it reads like a resume. The tag is there to encourage someone to rewrite the article. It's not a slight on you or the information that's there. It's just a tag. Like the stub tag.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, No I don't agree. The instant tag is a COI tag, and that is inapropriate here, especially since you say that your complaint is one dealing with style. If you want to add a style tag like the Stub tag you have already mentioned, fine, but I have real reservations about the present tag. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)