Talk:Stephen Kaplan (paranormal investigator)

Tagging of article
The article is tagged because parts of it are written like a personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article. It could also do with more citations, as there are numerous statements that require verification. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which statements, specifically, require verification? Also, if possible, what is required to verify those statements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.210.130 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Stephen Kaplan falls considerably short of the requirements for verifiability and neutrality, and has done for quite a while. Many statements are hard to verify, and some read like they have been lifted from official biographies rather than third party sources. Sourcing should, where possible, be taken from mainstream media sources, and avoid self-published sources which may lack reliability or neutrality. The "Awards" section in particular is a worry, since it is completely uncited and some of them look like dubious paper mill qualifications. See reliable sources for more information in this area.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that, according to comments left on my talk page, user has a conflict of interest with this subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)