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 03:54, 18 July 2010 editThparkth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,999 edits →POV problem: cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 14:01, 15 August 2010 edit undoRFC bot (talk | contribs)216,124 edits Removing expired rfctagNext edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
== POV problem == == POV problem ==


{{rfctag|bio}}


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

Revision as of 14:01, 15 August 2010

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

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)
Categories: