Misplaced Pages

Talk:Michael Hesemann: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:20, 2 January 2011 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,594 editsm Dating comment by HSchnyder - "→POV problem: "← Previous edit Revision as of 22:24, 6 February 2011 edit undoNrglaw (talk | contribs)49 edits →Footnote 12: new sectionNext edit →
Line 24: Line 24:


* Drive-by RFC commenter here. I share your sense that the article is less than neutral. Why not just dive straight in and edit/delete the stuff that seems overly promotional? You don't need anyone's permission to do this - if another editor disagrees they can revert you and you can have a polite chat about it. ]. ] (]) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC) * Drive-by RFC commenter here. I share your sense that the article is less than neutral. Why not just dive straight in and edit/delete the stuff that seems overly promotional? You don't need anyone's permission to do this - if another editor disagrees they can revert you and you can have a polite chat about it. ]. ] (]) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

== Footnote 12 ==

Footnote 12 refers to a Telegraph article relying on Hesemann's own research!

nrglaw--] (]) 22:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:24, 6 February 2011

WikiProject iconBiography Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

POV problem

Obviously there are two writers with the same name. There is also a third Michael Hesemann who is involved in microbiology and fossiles. Probably they were mixed up by this "ufoevidence" web site!

HSchnyder —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

It's well written, but very selective - clearly an ad.

"His 28 books were published in 14 languages" is followed by a litany of praises from high ranked church officials. There's no mention however that apparently at least half of those books are concerned with crop circles, green men and other UFO research:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/researchers/detail93.htm

The article doesn't seem to link to anythig either. It would be honest to at least use first person singular throughout the text.

Grzybozbur (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC may have been a bit premature here; there doesn't seem to be any dispute that requires third-party intervention. If you think that there is a POV issue here, it would be best to just fix it yourself, and if other editors find your actions contentious they can discuss it here. RfC is for cases wherein the dispute is over an article is not getting anywhere, and outside input is needed. siafu (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Drive-by RFC commenter here. I share your sense that the article is less than neutral. Why not just dive straight in and edit/delete the stuff that seems overly promotional? You don't need anyone's permission to do this - if another editor disagrees they can revert you and you can have a polite chat about it. be bold!. Thparkth (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 12

Footnote 12 refers to a Telegraph article relying on Hesemann's own research!

nrglaw--Nrglaw (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories: