Talk:Graham W. J. Beal

Unexplained removal
This article just had a large removal of reliably sourced information. The re-written article had absoultely none of the referenced items, in fact, it went out of the way not to mention any of them. I have reinstated the article to it's state prior. To be honest, the re-written article looks like a whitewash. KoshVorlon  Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * i agree. I would go so far as to say that it was written by DIA PR.  2602:304:5D47:C8A9:E51C:72C:3BEA:3433 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the removal was too much, but we've now got something that more closely resembles a hatchet job. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and stubbify the article. The current version seems rather extremely negative to me, and we should be careful not to violate WP:BLP. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I won't object if my edit is reverted, as long as my concern is noted. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont see the same kind of handwringing over Kim-Jong Un's bio. What's the deference? Graham Beal is a rich, corrupt white guy.
 * Please remember that our WP:BLP policy applies on all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages. It's obvious you don't like the guy, but let's keep the names out of it here and focus only on content from reliable sources.  What was there had a fair number of reliable sources, but not everything claimed was supported by the sources.  It was also extremely easy to see that the writing was purely one-sided against Beal.  This article should mention the controversy, but in a neutral manner. Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good call - thanks. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The policy calls for the removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced" information. Several articles in two "mainstream newspapers" (three, if you count the Metro Times) is hardly "poorly sourced." A far cry from a blog that calls Beal "a bow-tie wearing [orientation slur] who only cares about lining his own pockets." Ringcluder (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden. Adolf Hitler. Mahmoud Ahmedinajad. Dick Cheney. Ted Kaczynksi. Graham Beal. When you've got a pile of newspapers calling you a bad guy, don't come crying about how your record is being "maliciously distorted." 2602:304:5D47:C8A9:B8C8:A397:4A9D:E08D (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of that list bin Laden and Hitler have been dead for some time and are therefore not under the scope of WP:BLP. Cheney and Ahmedinajad have articles that a quick glance seem pretty neutral and don't put WP:UNDUE weight on criticism; Kaczynski is known primarily as a criminal, has been convicted in a court, and is serving a life sentence as such. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kim Jong-un was also mentioned. His article goes into quite a lot of detail emphasizing that we don't know much about the guy, and human rights violations have a small section with a hatnote link to another page. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * lets dial the hyperbole back a little bit. Beal's not in the company of Hitler and Cheney, he's in the company of Kevin Orr, Kenneth Lay, John Covington, Jordin Belfort, people like that.  Infact, their's a photo of Beal and Orr all chummy, smiling at each other like they love each other.  Beal doesn't care about Detroit's retired cops and firefighters as long as his big paychecks keep coming.  I'm writing these thing at the Detroit Public Library across from the DIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.124.241 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2014‎