Talk:John Banks Elliott

Dorothyelliott's recent expansion
As I said at Joe Decker's talk page, I think the recent expansion of the stub is highly problematic and, all in all, not beneficial. In particular, many of the cited sources don't mention Elliott or don't say what they're cited for. For example, the source for the claim that "he lived under the guidance of the Rt. Rev. John Orfeur Anglionby, Bishop of Accra" is this picture of Anglionby that does not mention Elliott. It obviously does not support the claim that Elliott was guided by the Bishop. Similarly, of the four sources for Elliott's military career, none mention him (with the possible exception of a JPEG image of which the file name, but no link are given - that's about as useful as citing "the book I have in my bookshelf"). The only source for Nkrumah's 1961 visit to Moscow that mentions Elliott says he accompanied Nkrumah to a concert - that's just a passing mention that doesn't provide any useful information about Elliott beyond "he was ambassador and did ambassadorial stuff". I could go on at length - lots of "sources" are cited, few of them mention Elliott in any detail. Even worse, those few sources that do discuss Elliott are misrepresented. For example, this article has quite a bit to say about Elliott's role relating to unrest of Ghanaian and other African students in the Soviet Union due to racist incidents. It does not, however, mention a "tit-for-tat" or Soviet accusations of racist incidents against African diplomats in America - yet that's what it's cited for. In fact, it paints a rather unflattering image of Elliott as advancing Soviet positions instead of Ghanaian ones and even cites another historian who called Elliott "[Nkrumah’s] worst ambassadorial appointment in this period". None of this found its way into our article. That's blatant whitewashing.

So in summary, instead of an accurate portrait of what reliable third-party sources report about Elliott, this expansion presents a one-sidedly positive image without (or even in spite of) references, based, according to Dorothyelliott's remarks at Joe Decker's talk page, on her personal conversations with Elliott, whom I assume to be her relative. Dorothyelliott may want to take a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest and at WP:Identifying reliable sources. Personal conversations with an article's subject are not considered reliable sources and cannot be independently verified by our readers. For these reasons I will revert her changes. I also have doubts about the copyright status of the images Dorothyelliott uploaded; she said they're not copyrighted, but provided no evidence to support that assertion. Unless such evidence is presented, the images will likely be deleted in a couple of days. Huon (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing the Wikipedia: Public domain to my attention.

I have read it thoroughly and have visited the applicable links. I would like to bring your attention to the guidelines on Wikipedia: Public domain. Where it states that Wikipedia is primarily subject to U.S. Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain I will also suggest you see Wikipedia: Copyright situations by country. To all of you who deleted files with reference to Ambassador John Banks Elliott “Your apologies are accepted” now, please replace them so that I can edit them accordingly.Dorothyelliott (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You've posted this same message a number of times: here, twice four times on your talk page, at Joe Decker's and Huon's talk pages, and on the ANI report you opened, but I'm not certain you have read the replies you've received in several of those places.  Please read them, because it's still clear that you're not understanding the problem with your images. BMK (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is of historical importance: pray @Houn to tell us why, when everyone is busy with a seasonal celebration of good will to mankind, he is spending his time scouting Wikipedia deleting people’s articles and files and putting forward for deletion the article on Ambassador John Banks Elliott, which for the record is of historical importance. What @Houn is doing I consider shameful.

Is this some sort of a personal vendetta against the subject, the topic or just the writer of the article? He has continually disrupted the progress of Ambassador Elliott’s page. The author, just like many others, is qualified to place articles on any subject that is relevant and of interest to the general public visiting Wikipedia. There are no reasons for @Houn’s haphazard behaviour, it has gone beyond decency. If @Houn has a personal problem, then he should let us know, perhaps we can help sort it, so that the article can go forward without disruption. '''This article is of historical importance and it will be unfair to have it deleted. ''' 81.204.38.26 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Dorothyelliott (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic text is back
"Mr. John Banks Elliott throughout his private and official life is renowned for his successes in building the Republic of Ghana’s image as the first African Country to gain Independence. He is resolute and holds no grudges towards any persons or institutions that are inequitable towards him or his achievements’. He resides in the Royal Borough of Berkshire, United Kingdom and is happy meeting old and new friends for a chat and catching up with current affairs of the world." Good for Mr. John Banks Elliot? The latter half of the hagiography has a grand total of one reference. --Neil N  talk to me 22:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, with reference to your message, I have rearticulated your concern regarding the last two paragraphs. Yes I agree that some more work needs to be done. With reference to name familiarities, I think you will agree that one will find and sometimes meet people with same or similar surnames. It does not necessary mean that they all stem from the same roots. Kind regards, Dorothyelliott (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, where you are insisting on turning the article into an unsourced hagiography, I do not think you are COI-free. --Neil N  talk to me 09:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)