This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erik Prince article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are many grammatical errors in this article. It seems to be below the normal standards not only for Wikipedia, but for English in general. Bad English seems to be a trend more and more prevalent. Is it a generational thing?
Good content for article! Wikipietime ( talk) 11:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This revert, coupled with this edit summary ("rm unnecessary in-text attribution, excessive wordiness, and factual info coming from a wildly unreliable source"), really puzzles me. DrFleischman, I would expect that type of revert and summary from some driveby, extreme right-wing, IP vandal, not an experienced editor. What gives?
We're dealing with an application of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so the allegations must be attributed very carefully, and we're dealing with two very RS.
I was literally fixing an NPOV "neutering of a RS" violation. That's not allowed. Editors must neutrally present what RS say, warts and all, with their biases intact. When I checked the source, I found it was even worse than I imagined. The content was much stronger, and the relatively mild description was removed using a bogus edit summary. I then went to work to present what was actually in the source, with attribution and denial, as required.
Was there some type of confusion or misunderstanding here? Keep in mind that I am not saying my wording couldn't be improved, but complete deletion is uncalled for. Try applying WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
"Reuters" reported that a "company connected to Zamel also worked on a proposal for a 'covert multimillion-dollar online manipulation campaign' to help Trump, utilizing thousands of fake social media accounts, the New York Times report said." Reuters also reported that Trump Jr.'s attorney said that "nothing came of the meeting".If this is going to be added, it should probably replace the paragraph with something like:
In August 2016, Donald Trump Jr. had a meeting with Prince, George Nader (an envoy for princes who led Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) and Joel Zamel, a social media specialist. Zamel extolled his company’s ability to give an edge to a political campaign; his firm having already drawn up a multimillion-dollar proposal for a social media manipulation effort to help elect Mr. Trump.
"since it's not illegal"relevant? Politrukki ( talk) 21:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I think blackwater should be linked to Academi because a lot of people know the name blackwater better and might be interested in opening the link. An exception should be made and put two links to the same site in the same paragraph Nuk3n ( talk) 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erik Prince article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are many grammatical errors in this article. It seems to be below the normal standards not only for Wikipedia, but for English in general. Bad English seems to be a trend more and more prevalent. Is it a generational thing?
Good content for article! Wikipietime ( talk) 11:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This revert, coupled with this edit summary ("rm unnecessary in-text attribution, excessive wordiness, and factual info coming from a wildly unreliable source"), really puzzles me. DrFleischman, I would expect that type of revert and summary from some driveby, extreme right-wing, IP vandal, not an experienced editor. What gives?
We're dealing with an application of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so the allegations must be attributed very carefully, and we're dealing with two very RS.
I was literally fixing an NPOV "neutering of a RS" violation. That's not allowed. Editors must neutrally present what RS say, warts and all, with their biases intact. When I checked the source, I found it was even worse than I imagined. The content was much stronger, and the relatively mild description was removed using a bogus edit summary. I then went to work to present what was actually in the source, with attribution and denial, as required.
Was there some type of confusion or misunderstanding here? Keep in mind that I am not saying my wording couldn't be improved, but complete deletion is uncalled for. Try applying WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
"Reuters" reported that a "company connected to Zamel also worked on a proposal for a 'covert multimillion-dollar online manipulation campaign' to help Trump, utilizing thousands of fake social media accounts, the New York Times report said." Reuters also reported that Trump Jr.'s attorney said that "nothing came of the meeting".If this is going to be added, it should probably replace the paragraph with something like:
In August 2016, Donald Trump Jr. had a meeting with Prince, George Nader (an envoy for princes who led Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) and Joel Zamel, a social media specialist. Zamel extolled his company’s ability to give an edge to a political campaign; his firm having already drawn up a multimillion-dollar proposal for a social media manipulation effort to help elect Mr. Trump.
"since it's not illegal"relevant? Politrukki ( talk) 21:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I think blackwater should be linked to Academi because a lot of people know the name blackwater better and might be interested in opening the link. An exception should be made and put two links to the same site in the same paragraph Nuk3n ( talk) 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)