Talk:Ted Malloch

Removing unsourced claims

I'm removing unsourced text because:

• The article has been clean up tagged for sources since Jan 2017
• The Honors section was also cited for no citations
• In early Feb the Financial times cited several instances in which the subject has made false claims in their memoir
• WP:BLP says claims about living persons may be removed if they are not sourced and are challenged by an editor

For these reasons I feel we need to be extra, extra careful about sources and the verfiability of the content in this article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In what universe are these claims uncited? JesseRafe (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Article in 'Independent'

This article recounts a number of claims of false statements by Malloch Donald Trump's likely EU ambassador Ted Malloch 'made false statements' to banks to obtain millions in loans. Would any of this be appropriate to add to the article?109.147.148.102 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. The Independent article cites a Financial Times article for its claims. I think it would be better to cite the FT article, but it is behind a paywall. AHeneen (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@AHeneen: : good news: https://www.ft.com/content/239d378e-ee20-11e6-ba01-119a44939bb6 is no longer behind a paywall. I have updated it. --Neun-x (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Is he still at Henley ?

As of today, https://www.henley.ac.uk/people/person/professor-theodore-roosevelt-malloch/ writes This is not a valid URL, please check your link Sorry, there has been a technical problem with this content. This element is not ready for publishing.

I have added a remark to the footnote. --Neun-x (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit made on 19 March 2018

I have made several edits to this article due to the fact that it clearly gives too much weight to certain issues, and this about a person who is still living. Due to previous connections with the American President Donald Trump, I can only presume that a lot of this has been emphasised for political reasons. I don't believe any of what was written to be false, just that it gives undue weight to certain topics and contains a lot of 'choice cuts' when it comes to quotes.

A summary of the changes I have made are as follows:

• Removal of 'Doing Virtuous Business' - there is no reason why this book should be mentioned over the others that he has written.
• Removal of the FT allegations that are mentioned in the 'Controversy and allegations' section over his autobiography - there is no reason for these to be included in the main section when considering this man's life as a whole. It is interesting to note that the autobiography itself is not mentioned here but allegations about it are.
• The reference to 'EU politicians' in general is a poor one, because it only refers to leaders of three parties within the parliament - no mention about the executive cabinet, other parties or indeed the council.
• The commentary from the Intelligence Squared debate is unnecessary. Phrases such as "Other panelists and the large audience were aghast at Malloch's statement:", "Malloch's answer caused gasps", "Shocked yet trying to explain further, Freedland said", and "Recognizing the nonsensical position taken by Malloch" have no place in an encyclopedia. A link to the IS debate is provided, but choice cuts from the 90 minute debate are not (having watched the debate there are many quotes that could have been taken from the debate, I see no reason why these particular ones have been included in this article). I have noticed that this debate has not been given the same prominence on the Wikipedia pages on the other participants to the debate. Could the prominence of this debate on this particular page be due to political motivations perhaps?
• His views on the EU and the euro are stated as: membership-euro-membership-euro. I have simply re-arranged them so that it is membership then euro. The two quotes about 'taming' and about the FT being an 'EU house journal' are simply not needed. They can be found in the source already, and again have been chosen for what particular reason?
• Finally there is an assertion about bankruptcy court records that has been sourced to an 'The Independent' article - a once great newspaper that has now become a website of dubious reliability. As written when editing: "Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism". A better source should be used. The article links to an FT article (a much more reliable source) but it is unfortunately behind a paywall that I can't see. A link to the actual bankruptcy documents would of course be even better. In fact considering that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous" I think that would be ideal.

It would also be ideal if there could be talk about his published work - he has published 14 books apparently - and yet there is no mention of any of them on his Wikipedia page!

I don't believe that any of these changes can be construed as bromides. Upon reading what has been written above this is clearly a contentious article (two people may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article, as noted above) but I think it is important to get the balance right, and to provide a neutral point-of-view.

Should anyone object to these changes, please highlight any objections below, as opposed to just reverting these changes as we don't want to start a revert war. Perhaps we could together co-operate to make this article better as there is clearly a lot more that could be written about this man. Poiuytre (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)