Talk:Eric Dezenhall

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]

[edit] Help!

This article has problems big and small--from grammatical and formatting problems to poor overall structure. I've spent some time trying to improve its readability and formatting, but could use more help! If anybody has any time, please lend a hand...Benzocane (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Per WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV we need to balance this article out. I'll spend some time in a day or two but it needs a lot of clean-up. Benjiboi 03:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are too many other BLPs who have their very names sourced, even if it is to their own websites. :) I see the need to remove the multiple sourcing to his websites/books and discussing the distinction between the owner and his company, but what specific edits are you thinking of? Flowanda | Talk 08:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would start with adding an infobox and just verifying that references supported what they asserted and that anything else in those same references was also added. I know nothing about the subject but the article's a messy bit that seems to dwell on piling on criticism so perhaps should also explain why this person is prominent enough to have such criticism. That would be a good start and I'm sure more would be unearthed through that vetting process. Benjiboi 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Update, I've done mostly cosmetic improvements and added some content, i need to work on some other articles but shall return. Benjiboi 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now stared at this a few times and (kudos, Benjiboy and AliveFreeHappy), it looks OK to me. It looks to me like it's a discussion of the individual, not the firm, which is fine in this case (I think). I'd support a removal of the neutrality box as it is now, possible replaced with a "help provide more info" box. Just my 2 cents... Ψν^Psi_nu 12:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Although it's better it does still seem to give undue weight to criticisms without balancing that this guy most have done other less-controversial work and done it well. I personally haven't vetted the refs provided but I'm willing to bet they have more info than just criticism. Benjiboi 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Why do the words "crisis", "conflict", and "controversy" need wikilinks, anyway? I was the one that removed them figuring not too many people would be terribly confused by the use of those terms... I don't care one way or the other, just thought it less than necessary. OK, that's 3 cents now :) Ψν^Psi_nu 12:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the wikilinks because of the prominence in the lede and although we hope our average reader knows what those three terms are and mean I think they fall into the gray area and I'd rather give them a link for ore info than not. Also our readers are not all English-as-a-first-language users. Benjiboi 18:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sources

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Possible sources. Benjiboi 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)