Talk:Peter Brabeck-Letmathe

SP applied

Somewhere around 18 Apr 2013 this individual was mentioned on a Reddit page, which led to substantial amount of juvenile vandalism (eg [1]. The article was SP'd by King of Hearts (talk · contribs) for a week as a result. Manning (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Jewish origin

It sounds pretty unbelieveable that somebody who was born in Austria in 1944 (not in a concentration camp) could be jewish.

Nowhere else in the Internet but on antisemitic networks this claim is found. This sounds so unreasonable i deleted it, just to see what further recherching brings in. Any proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflid (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

For a Carinthian with aristocratic Frankonian background this would be very unprobable. --El bes (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm removing the criticism section because, as I originally noted, 1) both source links are no longer functional, 2) he denies that he said he wants to privatize water and 3) the "award" is not notable and from an obscure activist organization. Here is the article in which he denies wanting to privatize water. If you want the criticism reinstated find valid sources that are noteworthy and clearly show his intent. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-brabeckletmathe/addressing-the-water-chal_b_3152926.html C0h3n (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "both source links are no longer functional" - not a reason for removal but for link replacement
• he did say it in the video, his rebuttal or claims to misinterpretation can be included after the initial allegation. Removal is clearly not in order.
• The award was from an environmental organization that does have its own wikipedia article. Not saying it's conclusive, but it is an indicator that it is notable enough, it has not been speed-deleted. Also, you are not the arbiter of notability. He was awarded and this fact can be mentioned in the article, because it is just that - a factual statement.
• Include his explanation in the article, do not delete a whole section because you think it has been sufficiently addressed in a basically self-published source (HuffPo).Wladthemlat (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

From the top of the page: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page..." This material does not meet the standards of Wikipedia because the water claim is poorly sourced and contentious(from "Wikipedia:No Original Research": "The phrase 'original research' ... includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."). The "Black Planet Award" is contentious and poorly sourced as the link is broken, furthermore it is not notable. Hence, I will continue to remove this material. I have also posted my concerns to the Biographies of Living Persons page for administrator review. Please do not continue to revert my removal of this material, as you are including poorly sourced contentious material in the article contrary to Wikipedia instructions. C0h3n (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote about water is a direct quote referenced in a primary source. Not OR. It stays. Until a consensus is reached or an admin solves this dispute, the article shall remain in the stable state.

The award is not contentious, it is not a conjecture, it is a factual statement that can be referenced. Wladthemlat (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear cut case of inappropriate material and your edits will continue to be reverted. C0h3n (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you see everybody agreeing with you or a post from an admin confirming your position? No. Not clear cut. Either argue your point or notify admins and wait for their decision, but do not engage in edit warring, please. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have notified admins. I'll do so again. This material is clearly contentious as the subject of the entry denies the allegations. Hence they should be removed unless or until they are well documented. A youtube video in a foreign language and an "award" from an obscure organization are not reliable sources. C0h3n (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How is a quote an 'allegation'. If you understand German on at least can read English, you can clearly hear/read him say that the idea of water as a human right is 'extreme'. There's nothing to dispute here. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that I've watched a video with english subtitles, I see that you also have problems with NPOV. The source is clearly trying to cast his comments in the worst possible light, and you are more than happy to quote mine him to make it even worse than the original context of the video. I still am not convinced that this is noteworthy enough (where's the media coverage?) to be included, but if it is, it needs major reworking to provide a NPOV. C0h3n (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The video has always been available with English subtitles, so let's just say "now, that you've watched the video (at last)". Anyway, what are you talking about? Did he say that access to water being a human right is an extreme solution? Yes he did. What does the article say? That he said that access to water being a human right is 'extreme'. I did not even touch the original wording, just added a source, what quote mining are you on about?Wladthemlat (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the section to be more NPOV. I've removed the unsourced and obscure award once more as it has no place here. I hope you can agree the new wording is much more neutral and work with it. C0h3n (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The source is the documentary We Feed the World whether or not the clip is available on you tube is irrelevant. Given the controversy sparked by the interview I think it easy makes it notable enough to be relevant given the interview had been given by Brabeck speaking as the CEO of Nestle at the time. ChristopheT (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Brabeck-Letmathe. 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://archive.is/20121217130226/https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=209626&coid=252457&lang=EN to https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=209626&coid=252457&lang=EN

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) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to contact to speak with you.

I would like to contact to speak with you. Anek kammungkun (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)