Talk:Barry Oberholzer

Removed poorly sourced controversy section
It seems that the content dumped from blogs and does not meet the qualifications of WP:BLP. I've removed poorly sourced sentences along with unreliable sources as per WP:BLP.Faizal batliwala (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Beast
The Daily Beast is considered a biased or opinionated source. Editors should be careful when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." The allegations made against him were untrue according to this. The South African police confirms that he was not involved in any fraud or criminal activities.--Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Per WP:PARTISAN, "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." I am using the The Daily Beast article as a source to verify his name and comments from the different government agencies, the same way American Security Today, a mostly unknown publication of questionable reliability if I'm being frank, is used to verify some of his company background. I agree that I made a mistake in regards to the arrest warrant sentence and did not reinstate that part. I have no comments on the Scribd document as I can not verify its authenticity. Regards. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't think The Daily Beast is an appropriate source for this. It's full of errors of fact. As I've stated above "The allegations or claims made in the article have turned out to be false according to the letter issued by the South African government." I have replaced it with The Sunday Times which is more authoritative source to support the statements made by the government agencies and other details present in the article. Cheers.--Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)