Talk:Con Coughlin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Character Assassination?
Whilst I have little knowledge of the veracity of the claims given here, this does seem to be a form of character assassination on Wikipedia. The strength of these allegations is great, but so wide-ranging that I wonder whether one man could physically perform so much in so little time.
Whilst much of it could be true, such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I sense numerous twisting of words, and biased statements, when I follow the links provided and much of this needs further sources. --Wee Jimmy (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I've tagged it pov and blpdispute. Douglasi (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please highlight here where the problems may lie.Chendy (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I'm cleaning this article up right now. Please read if you care.
I'm going to remove the neutrality tag. I will be able to do this after I read through the article and add FACT tags where needed. Also, I will remove information that isn't there or implemented correctly under a section...
See Con_Coughlin#Iran:
The article said:
-
- Also in an article published on 27 June 2004 in Daily Telegraph, Coughlin claimed that the temporary closure of the newly built Imam Khomeini Airport in the suburbs of Tehran was the result of a nuclear incident. [1]
This was under Criticism, but this doesn't criticize. It doesn't say that the report was proven wrong, and certainly doesn't provide a citation saying such. It just says that he wrote that article claiming something. But there's no criticism.
I will remove content like this, and FACT tag content that looks appropriate but doesn't have a source. If people are claiming that this article is not NPOV, perhaps you should add some positive commentary on Coughlin, awards and the such to balance it out. Simply having properly sourced criticism does not mean that the article isn't NPOV. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
I recommend that if you care about the article add some sourced positive information. And also cite the information that is already presented. I am simply doing clean up to make it look decent.
Thanks. Beam 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Basically added punctuation, and [citation needed] tags. Only removed that line in the Iran section. Please add these sources, or this content may be removed. There is no POV issue here, the only issue is that there is no positive reviews or awards or the such. I hope these are added for a more balanced article. But it's really not a neutrality issue as the criticism are sourced, or hopefully will be soon. Good luck, I'll stop by in a few days. Beam 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Beam. I created the majorty of the stuff here except the stuff above. I agree the content shouldn't be in the criticism section, but instead of being removed should be in an iran section. I will put a bit of effort in soon.Chendy (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Iran section? What? I think having what is left there is good enough. Unless you're going to tie the information I removed into some sort of criticism like "Con said this in this *article*, then 3 months later this *article* published by *person* pointed out that Con was full of shit" Something like that! ;) Beam 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
