Talk:David Dickens

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

rubbish

This article absolutely does not respect the majority view that Dickens was a man, not well respected and he was fired. So most of what is written is a load of rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnobrien98 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the BLP banner at the top of this page - even if it is true, the claims need to have been published by a reliable source - I see nothing to substaniate those comments at the New Zealand Herald for example. Putting "he was sacked" three times in the article without any reference is counterproductive and against the policy for WP:BLP, as well as WP:NPOV. XLerate (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Dickens/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is completely biased. It was clearly written by Dickens himself. The point that Dickens was widely respected goes at odds with the fact that he was fired from his job and has been unable to find employment in the defence community ever since. The article needs a major re-write. (JB)

Last edited at 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Given that the issues surrounding the subject of this article happened a while back and were seemingly a flash in the pan, maybe merging it into Centre for Strategic Studies would make sense. Deepred6502 (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]