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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Despite assurances that reliable sources would be used the bulk of this article depended on blogs. Sources claiming to be the BBC and Times Educational Supplement were actually blogs. Other sources claiming to be The Times were a Search Engine. What on earth is going on? Whole sentences claiming to know what was in the mind of the subject. Good grief. If you are a Paid Editor you must declare this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofoolie ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Offline-sources do not have any page numbers. On requesting from the main-contributor of this article to provide evidence of these articles I was confronted with avoidance and non-engagement with the query. I am concerned because this contributor labelled the subject a "Big Player" in the UK we have a conflict-of-interest or promotion. Offline articles are cited with no evidence the editor who added them has read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofoolie ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I find it interesting that large portions of this article were removed because of "unreliability" when, as far as I can see on WP:RSP, most (though admittedly not all) of the sources are generally reliable. Sources like Baldwin's YouTube are definitely not reliable, and I agree that it should no longer be in the article. But there were plenty of sources in the sections you deleted (@ Nofoolie) that are reliable based on WP:RSP. I am going to readd most of that content and delete the portions that are not reliable based on WP:RSP.
Also, I find it interesting that as soon as this article is reduced down to mere lines of text from what it once was, I no longer have a conflict of interest with Graham Baldwin. I was never put on the WP:COIN (CoI noticeboard) to be investigated for my accused conflict of interest (see User talk:Jacquesparker0#Graham Baldwin & Ian Haworth). Either you (@ Nofoolie) falsely accused me of CoI or somehow found that I was not in CoI with Baldwin (but still under "investigation" for Ian Haworth since that notice is still up on his page). I don't think it's the latter because I was never put on the WP:COIN, and I don't want to believe it was the former because I want to assume good faith. If you can please clarify this I would be very grateful. -- Jacquesparker0 ( talk) 16:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
It is no surprise to me that after about 6 months, you, @ Nofoolie still somehow find my work "suspicious", as you have written on multiple edit comments on this article recently. We have been through this before, accessible at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133#User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie, where you refused to provide evidence that I have a CoI. I understand you are not necessarily saying I have a CoI in your edit comments, but considering our history of going back and forth on this subject, I find it very disheartening that you have once again gutted the article because of a perceived "suspicion".
Most editors would go to the talk page to discuss finding better sources/better ways of accessing sources as opposed to essentially deleting an article. Again and again I have demonstrated that I am willing to work on the article to make it better, but I have my suspicions about whether you want this article to exist in the first place. It seems that if the article is not inherently negative to the subject, you find it "suspicious". Running a charity and being a chaplain are not necessarily positive things (some charities and some chaplains are not good), and at least some of the sources I read to write the article use the word "deprogrammer" to describe Baldwin, which I would definitely say is not a positive thing to be called.
I am going to revert these edits, and I would really appreciate you not starting an edit war (see WP:EW) over this and instead talk to me and other editors on the talk page about the specifics of the sources and details in the article that should be removed or changed, especially since there are some changes I agree with but the manner in which you are conducting yourself is not acceptable (per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133#User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie). I am once again asking you to work with me rather than against me. I will go to the Administrators' noticeboard ( WP:ANI) if you choose to not work with me on this. -- Jacquesparker0 ( talk) 09:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Despite assurances that reliable sources would be used the bulk of this article depended on blogs. Sources claiming to be the BBC and Times Educational Supplement were actually blogs. Other sources claiming to be The Times were a Search Engine. What on earth is going on? Whole sentences claiming to know what was in the mind of the subject. Good grief. If you are a Paid Editor you must declare this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofoolie ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Offline-sources do not have any page numbers. On requesting from the main-contributor of this article to provide evidence of these articles I was confronted with avoidance and non-engagement with the query. I am concerned because this contributor labelled the subject a "Big Player" in the UK we have a conflict-of-interest or promotion. Offline articles are cited with no evidence the editor who added them has read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofoolie ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I find it interesting that large portions of this article were removed because of "unreliability" when, as far as I can see on WP:RSP, most (though admittedly not all) of the sources are generally reliable. Sources like Baldwin's YouTube are definitely not reliable, and I agree that it should no longer be in the article. But there were plenty of sources in the sections you deleted (@ Nofoolie) that are reliable based on WP:RSP. I am going to readd most of that content and delete the portions that are not reliable based on WP:RSP.
Also, I find it interesting that as soon as this article is reduced down to mere lines of text from what it once was, I no longer have a conflict of interest with Graham Baldwin. I was never put on the WP:COIN (CoI noticeboard) to be investigated for my accused conflict of interest (see User talk:Jacquesparker0#Graham Baldwin & Ian Haworth). Either you (@ Nofoolie) falsely accused me of CoI or somehow found that I was not in CoI with Baldwin (but still under "investigation" for Ian Haworth since that notice is still up on his page). I don't think it's the latter because I was never put on the WP:COIN, and I don't want to believe it was the former because I want to assume good faith. If you can please clarify this I would be very grateful. -- Jacquesparker0 ( talk) 16:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
It is no surprise to me that after about 6 months, you, @ Nofoolie still somehow find my work "suspicious", as you have written on multiple edit comments on this article recently. We have been through this before, accessible at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133#User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie, where you refused to provide evidence that I have a CoI. I understand you are not necessarily saying I have a CoI in your edit comments, but considering our history of going back and forth on this subject, I find it very disheartening that you have once again gutted the article because of a perceived "suspicion".
Most editors would go to the talk page to discuss finding better sources/better ways of accessing sources as opposed to essentially deleting an article. Again and again I have demonstrated that I am willing to work on the article to make it better, but I have my suspicions about whether you want this article to exist in the first place. It seems that if the article is not inherently negative to the subject, you find it "suspicious". Running a charity and being a chaplain are not necessarily positive things (some charities and some chaplains are not good), and at least some of the sources I read to write the article use the word "deprogrammer" to describe Baldwin, which I would definitely say is not a positive thing to be called.
I am going to revert these edits, and I would really appreciate you not starting an edit war (see WP:EW) over this and instead talk to me and other editors on the talk page about the specifics of the sources and details in the article that should be removed or changed, especially since there are some changes I agree with but the manner in which you are conducting yourself is not acceptable (per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133#User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie). I am once again asking you to work with me rather than against me. I will go to the Administrators' noticeboard ( WP:ANI) if you choose to not work with me on this. -- Jacquesparker0 ( talk) 09:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)