Talk:Joe Blackman

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Blackman. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018041517/http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/frederick-ponsonby/26499 to http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/frederick-ponsonby/26499

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) 09:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Revisions by User:Jytdog

I refer to a number of recent revisions by User:Jytdog. It is my opinion that the revisions have created a poor quality article and are disruptive editing WP:DISRUPT. A number of good references were removed, and relevent content to the article subject was removed. The edits do not comply with the Neutral Point of View requirement and are disruptive. There are also upsupported assertions and factual inaccuracies in the revised edits. I consider rewriting parts of the article and reinstating others. I do not wish to engage in edit warring and so if there are further questions about these edits, it is right that they are discussed and/or moderated through this page. There was also an assertion of ‘conflicted editing’ which are rejected. The edit in question refers to the article subject being referred to as an Entrepreneur which was supported by numerous references prior to them being deleted during the recent edits. Sazp1985 (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sazp1985: The changes by User:Jytdog look like a big improvement to me, reducing the promotional nature of the article and making it more compliant with our policy on biographies. Please substantiate There are also upsupported assertions and factual inaccuracies in the revised edits. by linking to other reliable sources that show that the current article is incorrect. SmartSE (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on that SmartSE and I appreciate the second point of view. I agree perhaps some of the edits perhaps could have been viewed as promotional in heinsight. There was quite a lot of data I pulled from articles to try help expand the stub. Let me perhaps relook at the factual content in all of the material available online and try see if I can expand the article in a better way. I think perhaps I might try make some further edits to expand the article as individual edits, and list the rationale behind the edit so it would help any other editors reviewing and changing the edits to explain why they feel that particular point is promotional or breaches Wikipedia Guidelines. Wikipedia can be quite a a hard interface to navigate and as such this helps me develop my editing skills before I start touching too many other articles! Many thanks. Sazp1985 (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy to discuss any specific changes. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Restructure & Changes

I propose to try and get this article up to 'Good' article classification. I note a number of different biographical articles classified as 'Good' have a similar structure to the proposed below. An example being the article of Buddy Fletcher which is short and encyclopaedic in nature.. I also note that the article before some recent edits was promotional and fragmented from numerous individual edits. Recent editors have cleaned this up. The most recent edits of 4th March 2018 by User:Jytdog start to add back content after it was amended for readability and I propose to further this work.

I would propose to change the opening paragraph to include additional, verifiable personal information where I can source it. I intend to expand the infobox to include information that has been cited throughout other parts of the article. I note a previous edit attempt I made was reverted by User:Jytdog and on reflection I believe that may have been due to a lack of cited information through the article (required under the criteria). This has been noted and further revisions will have this firmly in mind.

I would propose the next section should be on Early life. This will detail some of the background information contained within the event planning section. I would suggest that this is moved to this section plus additional detail found in some of the currently cited sources is added in. Having reviewed the currently cited sources, I do not thing this section need be much more lengthy than it currently is so not to give undue weight to this section. There is, however, additional background information available and it makes logical sense to place this into a different category.

I would suggest the section entitled Event planning should be renamed to Career, and trimmed of information relating to the article subjects company and its achievements which I do not think are directly related to the article subject. There are articles which specifically list events that this individual has worked on and I propose that the article is slightly changed to reflect career achievement related to the article subject rather than the article subjects businesses. This could otherwise be seen as promotional otherwise and not relevant.

I would suggest the Magistrate's service section be changed to Judicial Appointments. It could be argued that this should be a subsection of career along with the information on the subject articles business however as it seems individuals are not appointed as a career move, it would probably not be accurate. However, it is more accurate to list being a magistrate as an appointment rather than a service.

There are also additional categories which could probably be added in relation to the subject article.

After amendments are made, I would suggest that the article be submitted for article assessment to review its current classification with the added content.

I note there are a number of interested editors on this article, and so I would request any comments before I look to make these changes. I would also note that there is a COI discussion on my talk page. Having discussed a potential COI, I have concluded with another editor that no COI exists. I would declare that although I 'know of' this individual, which makes the editing more interesting, I have no personal relationship. I also would mention a point on neutrality - I do have some knowledge of additional information relating to the subject through the industry which he operates in, I shall be cautious to ensure all edits have a NPOV and are properly cited. Sazp1985 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Further to recent reflection on my talk page, while I don’t believe there is a COI, I admit there may be a perceived one and as such I request comment on the above.Sazp1985 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. It is not clear what detail can be added that would still be encyclopedic. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we provide summaries of what reliable sources say about things, giving WEIGHT as the sources do.

That is why most of the article is about his business activities. That is what most of the sources discuss. I have filled in around the edges some using primary sources (for example, the disposition of his event planning business, sourced to Companies House.)

That is how we build articles here - we follow independent secondary sources giving WP:WEIGHT as they do, and fill in around the edges with primary sources as needed.

This is one of the hardest things for new editors to learn. We do not generate content in a way that is familiar to almost anybody who writes for a living, here in Wikipedia. Instead, we summarize reliable sources That is the only thing we do here. Please get grounded on that bizarre reality of WP, which is also what has made this strange project possible. Sources are authoritative. Not you, not me.

I have declined the COI request as there is no concrete proposal in it, in any case. Please make concrete proposals in the future - (things like "please add X" where "X" is the actual content, with sources, that you would like to see added.) Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It’s OK - I’m done with this article! I will move onto others!Sazp1985 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)