Talk:Martin Halstead

BLP concerns
I'm concerned this article may be treading on very thin ice. We are told of police involvement: feelings are running high; and since this is a biography of a living person, there may be a risk of infringing libel laws and Wikipedia's policy ( Biographies of living persons ). Any views? Should the article be referred to an administrator? SkyeWaye (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

At the moment everything said has been carefully referenced, and is careful to be clear that it is restating information reported elsewhere rather than actually making any allegations. The article is balanced and includes all the subject's reported statements about the matters raised. I don't see any problems as long as people continue taking care to maintain this. Barrybounce (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

One thing I would also suggest is that even though the article was initially created by his PR agency, he seems to be getting more notable by the day. The article is no longer un-referenced and there is a lot of secondary reporting of him and matters relating to his business. He has also now launched two airlines that have quickly failed. I think his history is now sufficiently interesting to be worthy of being recorded! Barrybounce (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd agree that there is plenty of secondary reporting, and it passes as 'notable' as far as I can judge! As it stands at present, the article does indeed appear neutral and well-referenced. I felt concerned at some earlier versions: and the risk of (let's say) non-neutral material creeping in when a police investigation is under way, and many people are still upset about the situation.


 * More views are welcome - I just wanted to start some discussion on the matter ...(though I didn't put the 'neutrality' flag on the article)  SkyeWaye (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed the flag. As long as this article is properly maintained, it shouldn't be an issue. People are definitely upset about the situation, but this article appears to be well-sourced for the most part. Should it become less than neutral again in the future, I'm sure whoever flagged it the first time will restate their concerns. For now, looks legit! Truthsayer202 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the notability flag as well. I don't think it could possibly be questioned any more! Barrybounce (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Barrybounce & Truthsayer202 for sharing your views: much appreciated SkyeWaye (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead
has acquired a reputation in Britain and more widely for his interests in the aviation industry. anybody know what that actually means! Perhaps should be reworded to something more factual like: .. an airline entrepreneur and businessman who has been involved in a number of start-up airlines. MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed - it is rather vague as stands. The problem,  as I see it, is that a factual description may not be neutral – and a neutral description may not be factual. For example, the description 'entrepreneur' seems inaccurate to my eyes: an entrepreneur organises a business at his/her own risk (usually a financial risk), and the police investigation casts doubt on this. The BBC are using  the term, nonetheless: (Fraud probe into flight service from Oxford Airport - BBC)


 * The best alternative I can come up with is '…acquired a reputation for attempted aviation startups', but I do not like that much either! Any other views/ideas? SkyeWaye (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I understand your aversion to entrepeneur but it is citable, acquired a reputation would really need to be referenced as a blp issue. Perhaps company director would be factual? Nice to see if we have any other views on this. MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Company director sounds fine to me: both factual and neutral. Other views welcome.... SkyeWaye (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at improving the lead, with a company director who has founded two short-lived aviation businesses. That seems to sum up the article, but if it doesn't sound right, feel free to edit. I avoided 'airline', because I understand you need an Air Operator's Certificate to run an airline? Or is that incorrect/pedantic?
 * The newspaper sources in this article state Mr Halstead originally ran and sold another successful business, which designed flight sim software. I haven't been able to find any sources for this early success, other than these articles, but perhaps it should be included.SkyeWaye (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone keeps trying to remove some of the less flattering statements about Martin Halstead. If it is true that the fraud case has been dropped, you need to find a newspaper article or police press release to support it. I'm pretty sure the Oxford Mail would cover it if it was true. Then you can add a section saying the case has been dropped, but you can't delete the bits saying it was started. Jonbryce (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I now have coverage from the BBC and the Oxford Mail that the fraud case has been dropped, so I've added the details to the relevant section. Jonbryce (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I have simplified the text a bit as it had a lot of detail about the investigation and far two many refs - no need to mention where the refs came from in the main body. MilborneOne (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead
Firstly, whatever happens, the company director thing needs removing. Being a board member of a multinational is one thing, being a company director... frankly if you haven't been a company director by age 30, and you have any private sector ambitions at all, you are, to misquote a misquote of thatcher, destined to be taking the bus all your life.

Secondly, while BLP of course applies, this guy's note is basically for being a con man. It isn't a violation to point that out in the opening paragraph. But I invite your thoughts before I edit it again. Egg  Centri  c  15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you want the company director bit removed, is it not true? as far as mentioning he is known as a "con man" then BLP applies in that he has not been convicted of anything or proven so just take care in any wording that you change or use and it has to be backed by reliable sourcing and appropriate weight. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to remove the company director thing altogether, since it is one moderately important part of his career. The ideal case would be to expand the lead, preferably to two paragraphs or so, to cover all of the important points of the main article text like WP:LEAD suggests. We should mention the corruption/dishonesty allegations, but describing him as a "con man" in the opening sentence when nothing's actually been proven is a step too far. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My position on the company director thing is that it's irrelevant. It's barely more relevant than adding he passed his cycling proficiency test or whatever. Proper acheivements - broadly construed - should be put there. Egg   Centri  c  19:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, none of the more notable things would have happened if he hadn't been a director of the companies involved, so I'm not convinced that it's irrelevant, although perhaps not the best from a descriptive viewpoint. Maybe "entrepreneur" or "former entrepreneur" would be an improvement. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)