User talk:00Herrons

So we need to work something out for this Jac Nasser article. I’m not sure why you’re so keen to paint such a rosy picture of Nasser (though I have a fairly good idea) but you can’t just go round deleting all of someone’s additions, especially when they’re properly referenced as mine were. You can add a counter claim so long as it’s properly referenced which I wouldn’t have had a problem with. However your article is not even properly referenced, despite your assertions, because the references are not linked to the parts of the article they’re supposed apply to.

Furthermore there are clearly some direct copy and pastes from Nasser’s personal site (as there were in the article I first encountered and of which I still left a lot) which can hardly be considered a neutral or reliable source. Neither can … who wrote the Australian article as he is married to a BHP PR exec http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/17/journalism-media-couples-an-updated-crikey-list/. This is obviously not a good source to rely on but at the very least the conflict should be clearly stated. If it were just his birth date or some other minor personal info I wouldn’t have a problem with these sources but they can’t be relied upon to give details of what happened in his career (for I would hope obvious reasons).

You clearly don’t like any details about the Firestone and Ford controversy but it happened and it needs to be discussed. Again if you have a counter-claim from a reasonably reliable source then put it in, or if you think the statement doesn’t fairly summarise what is said in the source then make some minor adjustments. Don’t just delete all the info.

The fair way to resolve this I think would be to start with the article which was on there before everything was totally changed, and then we can add to it from there (in neutral style) –you are not supposed to be writing his CV. If you have a problem with my sources or how they have been represented then make APPROPRIATE modifications and say why, don’t use the silly excuse of “ideological bias” and just change it to make it look good for Jac.

If you continue to keep doing what you’re doing I’ll just take it to a dispute resolution channel. I don’t mind too much either way but I’m giving you the opportunity to be reasonable about this. Politicalpat (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)