Talk:Semion Mogilevich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Semion Mogilevich article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Comment 1

WHAT!?! WHAT IS THIS!!!this is the most biased un credited article that i have ever seen somebody should fix it or at least slap on one of those wiki warnining tags

[edit] POV Check

Per above. As an example - a statement taken from a random section of the page:

Budapest looked like the paradise Mogilevich was waiting for

Relatively few sources sited, and many, many biased statements. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this article is a load of crap

this is the most bias nonsensical opionated article on wikipedia i have ever read, the author is quite a story teller but unfortunately for him wikipedia is not for story telling its for facts.

Agreed. This article is a joke, and in desperate need of source citation. Much of what is written in it is untrue. I am tempted to correct it, but all that I can add would be in violation of the original research rule. I suggest that the article be removed; it is an example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, and that is a great shame. Andaleesa 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten. It was actually verbatim copy of one of the webpage listed. Pavel Vozenilek 20:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)