Talk:Eminata Group

Untitled
This article will be rewritten in the next couple of hours. Please do not delete. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yode24 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 30 June 2008‎

Peter Chung
There is a great deal of press about him that brings up his position at Eminata and his history in California. Is it so prominent that it belongs in the lede? Given how skeletal this article is, it's not clear where else to place it. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary and self-published sources should be used with caution, if at all. Certainly not in a manner that violates WP:SOAP and WP:GEVAL. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Might be helpful in latest dispute: --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 

Dispute on the misuse of the term "convicted"
This article contains the following sentence. “Eminata is chaired by Peter Chung, a man convicted in 1993 in California for defrauding students at a computer school he ran.” This sentence contains a defamatory term "convicted" which is not applicable given that it was a civil injunction. As you may know, in civil law, a judgment/injunction may be made against the defendant but it is different from a conviction which is applicable to criminal cases only. This is a dangerous entry as it harms the individual noted, and misinforms the layperson who may not know the difference between civil lawsuits and criminal charges. Similarly, when Mcdonald’s was sued for injuring Liebeck with hot coffee, the company (defendant) was ordered to pay $2.7 million to Liebeck. Now, this does not mean that the CEO of Mcdonald’s was convicted. (Liebeck v. Mcdonald's). Amvan2002 (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"convicted"?
I have removed the wording claiming a conviction from the article. Our critically important policy on biographies of living people states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." One mention in an Indian publication is not reliable sourcing for a supposed conviction in California. The burden is on whoever tries to add this "convicted" language back into the article to furnish an impeccable source. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable, but not for the exact legal terminology. Given the source above, now added to the article, I think we might want to reconsider the wording. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eminata Group. 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://web.archive.org/web/20160319132637/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=a06177ff-7b28-41ad-90f5-c181052f05ea to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=a06177ff-7b28-41ad-90f5-c181052f05ea

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)