| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
rubbish
editThis article absolutely does not respect the majority view that Dickens was a man, not well respected and he was fired. So most of what is written is a load of rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnobrien98 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please see the BLP banner at the top of this page - even if it is true, the claims need to have been published by a reliable source - I see nothing to substaniate those comments at the New Zealand Herald for example. Putting "he was sacked" three times in the article without any reference is counterproductive and against the policy for WP:BLP, as well as WP:NPOV. XLerate (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Assessment comment
editThe comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Dickens/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| This article is completely biased. It was clearly written by Dickens himself. The point that Dickens was widely respected goes at odds with the fact that he was fired from his job and has been unable to find employment in the defence community ever since. The article needs a major re-write. (JB) |
Last edited at 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Merge proposal
editGiven that the issues surrounding the subject of this article happened a while back and were seemingly a flash in the pan, maybe merging it into Centre for Strategic Studies would make sense. Deepred6502 (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)