Talk:Harbottle & Lewis/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Recreate
This page was deleted on 8th December 2008 for reason G8: "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page. Such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page." "The current Harbottle & Lewis page was created on the 9th December 2008, so that the reason for deleting the talk page is no longer valid, so I assume it is ok to re-create it.
Dubious
JuliaWeiss created the original page in 2009 and has added a tag saying that the article 'is slanted towards recent events'. I disagree strongly. The article certainly reports the recent prominence of Harbottle and Lewis in the News Corporation phone hacking scandal, and all the information provided comes from verifiable sources, and much if it is in the form of direct quotations from the protagonists, including H&B itself, so the article is not slanted, but is reporting what is happening.
I suggest the tag be removed.Epzcaw (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- The tag was reasonable (though you are correct that there appear to be WP:COI issues). I've removed the text which essentially duplicated the text at News International phone hacking scandal#Harbottle and Lewis (partly as much of it is vague, speculative, or just wordy; relatively little concrete info) and replaced it with the key facts. This may well need expanding as more information emerges, but for now, keeping duplication across articles to a minimum is highly advisable, since the situation is so fluid, and so much more information is going to emerge with the ongoing inquiries. Rd232 talk 22:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent. Much better to summarise the story so far here and refer to main NC article. But essential that the article about H&L does include information about the News Corp phone hacking, as the H&L letter had been used for several years to cover up the truth about what was going on in NOTW and history, as well as the here and now, needs to understand what actually went on. I hope that this will emerge and will watch out for updates and implement as appropriate. Epzcaw (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have deleted references to myself (again) because there is no reason to have my name, and links to my professional profile plastered all over this post. It adds nothing. JuliaWeiss 11:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- JuliaWeiss confirms that she is the person in the personal profile, thus confirming the suggestion that there is a WP:COI (conflict of interest) issue here.Epzcaw (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Censorship of this article?
On the 29th July, user:JuliaWeiss added a 'slanted' tag to this article. This was subsequently removed by another user.
At 15:14 on the 2nd August, JuliaWeiss inserted a 'slanted' and a 'POV' tag to this article. At 15:16, JuliaWeiss removed the tags and also removed her username and a link to a Linked profile of someone called Julia Weiss who is a marketing executive at Harbottle and Lewis from the 'Talk page - see above.
Today, the user who made these changes has changed his/her name to user:Hanskew.
All editings of the article and the discussion page now appear under the name user:Hanskew. However, the name cannot be deleted from this discussion - it will appear in the edit history versions even if it is removed from the live one.
It can also be seen that when you go to User talk:JuliaWeiss, you are re-directed to User talk:Hanskew
Reminder WP:COI: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
Epzcaw (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Change of name can be found here
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.209.99 (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)