Talk:Elliot Mintz
| 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Multiple Wikipedia policy violations edit
I know this is an article about a publicist, but it still cannot be written as fluffy, adjective-laden hype. Before this first pass at objective editing, it was violating policies including WP:PEACOCK, WP:DATED, WP:TONE, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and others.
I also see that footnoted facts, such as those appearing on the archived page for 15:24, 1 July 2008, were removed. The massaging of this piece is unconscionable, and the subject can either ask that it be removed entirely, or, otherwise, he must let it be written warts and all in a neutral, encyclopedic voice. Shameful. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- The press release-y changes were made 09:41, 19 February 2009 by User:98.149.135.207, whose three edits to this article were his only edits to Wikipedia. He made a blanket replacement of the legitimate Wikipedia article with this press release.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah this article is pretty bad. I'm gonna see if I can dust it off in my sandbox, and if it's not salvageable, well, then ... Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is a puff piece. I hope someone will correct that. Also, the statement that begins, "Mintz's interviews including those with..." has no verb and is therefore not a sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.77.16 (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)