Talk:Jörg Tauss

Primary sources not appropriate
Both the statement by Tauss and the law cited are primary sources and not appropriate unless referred to by a secondary source. The claims about the law are additionally original research, and not appropriate for that reason. Nevard (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, pls help me here: The inclusion criteria in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, is researching the legal aspects not outside the scope of this article? Btw, the text and sources come from the German Wikipedia article, perhaps a rephrasing would be possible? Cheers. - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, that would be original research- if a third party commentator like a newspaper legal reporter mentioned the connection it would be appropriate. Nevard (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was all over the news and shouldn't be too difficult to fix. - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Do that then. Nevard (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Article neutrality disputed
The allegations against Jörg Tauss of illegal possession of child pornographic material make 2/3 of the current article text. This puts undue weight on one viewpoint, leading to WP:NPOV problems. What makes things worse, the article has been translated for the Swedish Wikipedia in the meantime and sparked a similar discussion about "unbalanced representation" there. What do other editors think? - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if anything, this is a case of recentism, not questionable neutrality. --bender235 (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)