Talk:Matthew Glozier

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.

POV

Tagged as not conforming to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The article is stuffed with wholehearted praise for the subject. Such wording as "Glozier often provides both a stimulating narrative and a very good synthesis...", "This fine collection of essays...", "impressive range of scholarship...", etc etc is not suitable on Wikipedia. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tried to fix the language, at least. How well have I done? Dokushobaka (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement, but I still see the following: "Dr Matthew Glozier has explored thoroughly..."; "...a major scholarly monograph..."; "...shows how military history can be fruitfully integrated..."; and "The strength of Glozier’s books are their broad approach..." These statements are still very biased towards the subject. This is not to say they are untrue, however. It may be that he has thoroughly explored the motivation of expatriate soldier groups, and his book on the Huguenots may indeed be major, but if so, these statements need to be supported with references from third parties. It is not for Wikipedia to say what the strengths of Dr Glozier's work are, as this is opinion not fact, but somebody else may have done so. The quotations from Ryan Pederson and Gen. de la Billiere are good examples of how to do this in a neutral way. In other words, its best to state simply that he wrote a book on X, and what it deals with factually, then quote what independent sources have said about the book. Have a look through the NPOV tutorial for more pointers. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matthew Glozier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted

This BLP article does not highlight why this person is notable enough to have a wikipedia page. This page seemingly violates WP:SIGNIF. Additionally, it has citation issues (missing, etc). I am marking this page for speedy deletion per wiki policy. ThePorgieBaggins98 (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]