Talk:Mark Clifford

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. 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. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

untitled

The article has now been updated and fully referenced, except for his educational background, for which I was unable to find sources. Can anyone (the person who put that in) please cite sources for this information? Thanks Ohconfucius 02:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this page is quite biased and probably written by an ex-employee. This page is not representative of Mark Clifford at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aic09 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one instance where removal of sourced material, ostensibly for WP:NPOV, seems to impinge on WP:CENSOR. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a move towards less bias - as stated above, that is the problem here. The majority of the page does not need to be taken up with the overblown details of a couple of incidents within his career, (and the sole picture to explicitly relate to one of the incidents) as that really belongs - and should stay- in the blogs you cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aic09 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point that the SCMP section is overweight on the controversy surrounding his departure. I don't entirely agree about the image, which I think is a centrepiece of the section, but I won't revert. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E

The only substantive third-party sourcing I'm seeing in this article is over the subeditor sackings. WP:BLP1E would appear to apply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]