Talk:Eric Dezenhall

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The section at issue has a NPOV tag, so I removed the top tag. - Roy Boy 04:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

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

Additional possible source

[4]

--209.198.128.88 (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

npr interview: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=10108215&m=10108218
http://content.usatoday.com/community/tags/topic.aspx?req=tag&pg=2&tag=Eric%20Dezenhall -- articles quoting dezenhall as an expert
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03EED71439F93BA35755C0A9659C8B63 - nyt review of first book; bio info 20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP Issues

As subject of this article I have raised some BLP issues on the Noticeboard. [5] I would like to avoid a COI and ask other editors to please have a look. Thanks! Edezenhall (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user on my talk page asked that I expand on my concerns, I have done so over at the BLP Noticeboard and I invite editors to please take a look. Thanks! Edezenhall (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tag edit summary confusion

A citation tag was added to the article with an edit summary I can't figure out "only 1 ref in infobox/lead". The article itself contains a number of sources meeting WP:RS and WP:BLP, and the information in the intro and info box is easily found in those sources and based (with the exception of the criticism phrase) on Dezenhall's own bio (per WP:NCI#Self-identification). I had moved the sourcing down to the next section...am I editing incorrectly? Flowanda | Talk 20:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't expect readers to go find the repeats of facts and their references elsewhere in the article - everything challenged needs inline references per wp:blp and wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-02t21:56z

Clients

I would like to go on the record to state that I object to including a client section or any mention of clients in any way, in the article about me. It is my firm’s policy not to identify its clients. As a result, any source that names clients of my firm is not reliable because they are relying on rumors and speculation to write their story. I ask editors to please make the appropriate changes immediately.Edezenhall (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Clients" section should be deleted. The source for the claim that these are Dezenhall's clients is speculating and speculation is not reliable, especially in a BLP where the standards are higher.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, summarizing primary and secondary sources. If the cited sources like Business Week, Time, or Nature issue corrections, the sentences can be removed. -- Jeandré, 2011-09-11t14:02z

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new information

I am updating some information on his writing as it does not contain his newest book, Glass Jaw and adding links as it's been handled in previous sections Regina1170 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]