Talk:Parry Aftab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Possible copyright violation[edit]

This revision appears to be nothing but a copyvio of this biography on The content has been trimmed down, and a small amount of original content has been added, and it has been wikified, but it still remains a copyvio. I've reverted it for the time being. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a new user here. I've known Parry Aftab since 1996 and am a WiredSafety volunteer. After seeing the biased short bio that was there, I felt a more complete and objective bio be created. I contacted Parry, asked for and received permisson to use the bio material on WiredSafety. This may be verified by (Redacted) I should have included this information in the editing comments to avoid the misunderstanding.
In order to avoid any additional controversy, with the exception of a word or two, I let the existing material intact. It should be noted that based on the link and authorship of the Katie Jones section, it appears that both articles were written by Katie Jones, the person with whom the controvery arose. It was my understanding that it bad form to post one's own bio.
If necessary I can Parry's recreate it in my own words, but the essence will still be the same.
I am not sure how to revert to my edit of the bio. I would appreciate guidance in this procedure.
Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awolinsky (talkcontribs) 14:37, April 7, 2006.
You need permission by, not by Perry Aftab. 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Parry Aftab is the Executive Director of WiredSafety at the site, it states that all copyright permissions must go through her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16:05, April 7, 2006.
I have figured out how to repost article and have done so under my login. If additional confirmation is required to prove that there is no copyright violation, I will be happy to supply it. Awolinsky 23:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry I hadn't responded sooner regarding the article, but I had gone to bed before I noticed that you had replied. For copyrighted content to be used on Wikipedia, permission needs to come from the owner of the copyright to release it under the terms of the GFDL, the text of which can be found here. When permission is granted, the person granting permission should be aware of the following points about the GFDL license:

  1. The text or image may be freely redistributed and used.
  2. It may be freely modified, and modified versions may also be freely redistributed and used.
  3. Any redistribution must include the full text of the GFDL itself.
  4. In all cases, the GFDL requires proper attribution of the author(s).
  5. The GFDL allows commercial re-uses.

The owner doesn't give up any rights: they're still free to publish the text elsewhere or to license the same text to other parties under any other license. However, the requirement to include the full text of the GFDL with any redistribution makes stand-alone commercial reuse of the item unlikely in practice.

Finally, the full text of the permission from the copyright holder should be emailed to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood... I have contacted Parry Aftab. An permission e-mail should be coming to Wikipedia from jollygreen at wiredsafety dot org, the Assistant Director of WiredSafety. Once sent, I'm not sure if I repost the article or will it be done by Wikipedia staff. I will make the leap of faith and repost it unless I hear otherwise in this discussion. Sorry this is getting to be such a ping pong game, but every cloud has a silver lining. At least I am getting experience in wiki editing mark up language. 14:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The permission e-mail was sent three different time from three different accounts on three different servers. It bounced back as no relaying allowed in each case. I think it finally made it on the last attempt when I was asked to forward it. I will repost the biography. Please do not remove it. If there is a problem PLEASE e-mail me at awolinsky at and we will resolve this issue without feeling like a yo-yo. Thanks! 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
We have recieved no email containing the text "Parry Aftab". If you are unable to send to, you could try sending to I apologize for the inconvenience. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It has been sent again to both addresses. As of this time, it has not bounced. 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


According to OTRS message 2006041110000559, we have permission to use the content. -- Zanimum 16:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits by subject, not conforming to guidelines?[edit]

An account called Parryaftab recently edited this article on the 22nd of January, behaving as though its owner was the person described in the article. However, while she added to several paragraphs and her edits still exist on the article, all information added portrayed her in a positive light and moreover was worded with positive connotations, while existing information on the article was slightly edited to display her in a more positive light (such as suggesting that the list of her speaking engagements was incomplete but making no effort to fix it, and adding herself to the "Safety" category). As such, the NPOV of her edits is in question and could be considered "unduly self-serving". In addition, her edit (the only edit she has made on this page) adds no references or sources and thus seem to be unsourced - thus breaking verifiability and original research policies. Additionally, she presented certain information that are not even available on her biography on her own website - thus causing doubt about the account Parryaftab is actually Parry Aftab, and on top of that suggesting that the information is not factual. As I am inexperienced and somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia as well as the subject of the article, I am unsure how to handle this problem myself; as such, I am pointing it out to more experienced editors who likely know more than me. For reference, here are the Biographies of Living Persons guidelines in regards to edits by the subject of the article. 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

   * It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
   * It is relevant to the person's notability;
   * It is not contentious;
   * It is not unduly self-serving;
   * There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.

I agree, and for now I have added the "advert" tag as a warning to readers and encouragement to clean it up.--Honestshrubber 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, stop, think. Parry did not create this article. And an advertisement? Are you kidding? "She is the Executive Director of, the largest online safety and educational program in the world (All volunteers, including Parry, are unpaid.)" An advertisement for what, unpaid services? You might as well remove Smokey Bear for advertising for the Forest Service. is a major, perhaps THE major online safety web site, and you guys are claiming this is advertising? This lady gives up her legal career to volunteer, creates a tremendous resource, testifies before Congress, etc. Clearly, this is NOT advertising. This lady is a national leader in online safety. Someone put her here originally in recognition of that probably. I am removing that advert tag immediately.
And Parry, if you are reading this, do not be offended that some people listed you for speedy deletion. They intended no harm and were just unaware of things. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Relax, the tag was in place before a re-write that happened about half an hour ago. However, this article is severely lacking in citations. --Wafulz 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: "An advertisement for what, unpaid services?" It's worth pointing out that an advertisement is not necessarily commercial in nature. There's plenty of advertising for non-profit causes, including political campaigns and even religions. In this case, we could argue that Parry Aftab is a "brand" being promoted, where she profits in the form of increased book sales and (potentially paid) speaking engagements. Furthermore, based on some of the discussion that's been stirred up, Parry Aftab is a controversial brand (despite being attached to the noble cause of protecting children). Even without that controversy, it seems less than dilligent of Wikipedia (and the encyclopedia NPOV ideal) to wholesale base this article on Parry Aftab's own self-promotion. -- 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem at little NPOV about this subject. Compare her to Smokey the Bear? "THE major online safety web site"? "This lady is a national leader in online safety."? A personal message to the subject? Unaware of things? How well do you know her? I put forth that this "Legitimate" person is either an account of Parry's or a close friend/co-worker. You should recuse yourself from this discussion and make no further edits to this article, forthwith. Cchard 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Something awful forums[edit]

This link was just added to the article, but I feel it is better off not being in the article. However I'm copying it over to the talk page on the slight chance there is something useful in that thread?? Mathmo Talk 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources. However, it does provide the source of the recent vandalism. --Wafulz 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wafulz, I just don't understand the joy people must get from being mean to Parry in the way they vandalize this page. Why even waste their time? And Parry likely is too busy watching their backs to notice what they are doing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Because she's fat? But seriously, every claim on this page needs to have its own citation using the "ref" format. As it stands right now this page is terrible.--Liface 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Careful, don't feed the trolls. --Wafulz 05:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, I'd say that the article is biased in favor of her. It still reads as though it's simply been lifted off of a website promoting her and her activities. Agnapostate (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Potential sources of references/citations[edit]

A citation tag was added to this article. This query seems to provide a lot of potential sources/references/citations: Do a Google search on "Parry Aftab" --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This turns up her blogs. Even searching cursory parts of this article I haven't found anything to support even half the claims made. For example her involvement with "K-9 Angles". The link leads to a MindSpring placeholder page. Googling for this organization returns nothing other than Mrs. Parry Aftabs CSV and one hit to the SAME placeholder page. No previous versions were cached with Google. The only evidence to support that this organization has ever actually even existed is the fact the domain was registered on 26-Sep-2007. Is it time to prune this of peacock terms and bring it more inline with actual Wikipedia articles and not a CV? JustHeath 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone can give me some guidance on how to create a citation for a sentence such as this, I will give it a try. "She consults for and works with law enforcement agencies, worldwide, on cybercrime prevention, cyber-terrorism, law enforcement and security matters." The fact is that each instance of consulting is unique and no once source would serve the purpose of a citation. However, doing a search of government, law enforcement, and periodical databases will result in hundreds of hits, many of which are relevant. So how would one go about making such a citation? Awolinsky 15:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for not being proficient in Wikipedia editing citation styles. As stated above, I'm not sure how to site material that mentioned a wide range of activities in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia. However, I did find links that I thought covered the territory. I added a citation in the Education section from Congressman Tim Bishop and in the Consulting section from the European Council that appear to deal with most if not all of the lacking citations in those sections.

I see that extensive editing was done to remove peacock terms and add other citations. As the one who created the original article I did so without knowing the prohibition of this kind of language and welcome the corrections. I would hope that between that editing and the additional citations the editors will see their way to removing some of the tags.

I have links from the MSNBC,, Parade Magazine, The Montel Williams Show, the Early Show, USA Today, CNN, the FTC, Congressional Record, and many other sources that serve as testimony to the biography. I also have about 2 dozen citations from commercial databases such as Ebsco and Newsbank. Again, any help in making proper citations would be appreciated. Awolinsky 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go. That's why I reverted the wholesale removal of your work. We all have to respect each other; the wholesale cuts based on someone's perceived time limitation had to be reversed. Great work, Awolinsky, keep it up! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

I've re-inserted the POV tag, mainly because this article seems to speak very highly of the subject. Here are some statements that stand out:

She is The Privacy Lawyer columnist for Information Week Magazine and a frequent expert for media and news outlets, worldwide.

A "frequent" expert? How do you define someone who is "frequently" an expert in a field? Who calls her an expert? Do they matter?

She has worked with FBI, U.S. Customs, Interpol, Scotland Yard, the Home Office, Tokyo Metropolitan Police and Japan's National Police, Hong Kong Police and the RCMP

This practically reads like a CV listing, and it doesn't specify the type of work she does. Is it detective work? Collaboration? Filing some e-mails that say "hey I think this site is bad"?

In several other areas in the "Consulting and advisory activities" section, it is basically a listing of how she has "worked" with many organizations or been "featured" many times, but it doesn't actually say what was involved. It's really giving undue weight to list something just because she was quoted in it once or twice.

Her online discussions and writing are often published and quoted by legal journals in articles and judges in their decisions.

Once again, we have a weasel word issue. How many times does it qualify to be "often"?

My point is that there are a lot of unsourced sentences that seem very promotional and use peacock terms to inflate their value. --Wafulz 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but in essence we just need to find good sources for this information. Having that may make most these issues go away. Seems to me, at least. Ttfn, computer battery's dying. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I would add the following sentences to the list of questionable ones:
"She has been quoted or featured in most leading magazines, including [long list of magazines]."
"Parry provides parent Internet education and online safety content for such diverse sites as [another long list]..."
There are two problems with sentences like this: first, phrases like "most leading magazines" and "such diverse sites as" which are the kinds of things you might hear praising a speaker before she takes the stage or read on her web site, not NPOV information. Second, the long lists that this article is full of provide very little useful information, and again are the kinds of things you might see in promotional material. For example, in the case of the magazines, what is the point of including every major magazine that has ever quoted her? Even if references were cited for all these things, it would still makes for more of a CV than a biography. This is why I added the "advert" tag earlier, but perhaps the NPOV tag was more appropriate.--Honestshrubber 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I added the peacock tag to call attention to this problem.--Honestshrubber 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


This person doesn't seem notable at all. In fact, this whole entry seems to have been lifted whole from her own (poorly-designed) website. It reads like the finest variety of self-promotion. Chris Buckey 09:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was my nomination for deletion removed? This article is clearly a self-serving advertisement of an only vaguely notable individual. 05:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems non-notable to me, I'd support a deletion. It needs to be completely re-written if it stays, it's very much not a NPOV. Tombom23 08:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I too think she's non-notable. Throwing my support behind deletion. Lusy 10:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Then nominate it for deletion. --ElKevbo 12:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Non Notable individual and even if it stays the article needs to be rewritten to remove peacock terms. I support deletion 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you support deletion then nominate the article for deletion. Talking about it here doesn't do you any good. --ElKevbo 16:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I will vigorously oppose deletion. The page may not be the best written in the world, but that is not grounds for deletion in and of itself. It just needs improvement, the whole purpose of Wikipedia. The individual is not notable to people who want to ignore the notability of the person because they don't like what the person says and they don't want others to hear the message. Factually, she satisfies the definition of notability. Even nobility, in my POV. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not people want this to be deleted doesn't matter. The fact is, there are dozens of reliable secondary sources about her- hell, I managed to find about ten different ones for the "" section without even trying (though I didn't use them all). The article needs a rewrite pretty badly, but this doesn't mean that it will be deleted. --Wafulz 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Nominating articles for deletion seems a lot easier than nominating them to be rewritten :( Loriel 21:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Have a read through this. Cleaning up articles is significantly preferred to deleting them. This was a pretty lousy article at one point too you know. --Wafulz 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


It's been over two weeks since protection, there hasn't been any vandalism for a while, and the threads on SA have drifted back into obscurity. I think we can unprotect this article now. Any objections? --Wafulz 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No objections. --Sagan The Great 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was unprotected a few days ago. --ElKevbo 17:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to remove bulk of the uncited claims in order to tidy the page up. If anyone deems it necessary to reinsert them, I would suggest doing so only when sources can be cited properly. TedStevens 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempting major revision[edit]

Okay, we see this page has numerous problems and has had them for a while. I'm going to create a subpage here for me to attempt to build an encyclopedic page. It will likely take me a long time, but when I am done, I'll let people know then ask for comment for a week or so before posting it. I'll start by copying the existing article so don't expect major changes immediately. Further, I intend to follow the policy from WP:SUB which includes:

  1. [Do not] [w]rit[e] drafts of major article revisions, e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace, as you can get there accidentally using special:randompage — write these in the talk namespace, e.g. [[Talk:Example Article/Temp]]. See Wikipedia:Workpages for detail. Also, avoid incoming and outward links regarding such "Talk:.../Temp" page that might create the impression this is an encyclopedia page before it is, e.g.:
    • surround "category" links by "nowiki" tags, so that the temp page doesn't show up in a non-project category as if it were an article, example: <nowiki>[[Category:Incredibly smart people]]</nowiki>. The "nowiki" tags should be removed only when the "temp" content is moved to its place in article namespace. (This is an outward link example.) Another solution: put a colon before word "Category", for example, write [[:Category:Shamanism]] instead of [[Category:Shamanism]]. In this case, it will be still linkable, but it will not make the subpage appear on category pages.
    • don't create navigational templates that make it appear as if this temp page is part of a series of encyclopedia articles, for example, don't do this: "... | [[John I of Doeland]] | [[Talk:John II of Doeland/Temp|John II of Doeland]] | [[John III of Doeland]] | ...". (this is an incoming link example).
    • Draft pages mistakenly created in the main namespace should be moved as appropriate, or deleted if they are inactive and redundant to the main article.

Here is the subpage where I will be working: /revision of Parry Aftab.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

I have finished the majority of the major rewrite so I have placed on the main page so everyone can continue building it from there. I especially love the way I did the references so they will be easy to use and manage. I know I said I would give people a week to think about it, but I don't think anyone would see it if I did not post it on the main page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Five years later[edit]

It has been five years since any activity on this talk page. There was WP:UNDUE weight being given to non-notable events and information in press releases and other primary sources as well as overstating of minor personal criticisms by Katie Jones. I have cleared out most of the press releases and primary sources and balanced the article's content and tone. I could not find any articles where Aftab and her life/career were featured, however she has been quoted as an expert in numerous reliable, secondary sources. There are at least a dozen articles that are not cited in the current version of the article. I'd be happy to collaborate with anyone who wants to further develop the article in a fair and balanced manner, based on reliable secondary sources. Thanks for your help.-- KeithbobTalk 21:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Your unilateral editing of anything positive and hightlighting of everythingnegative causes me to suspect that you are not acting in good faith. You indicated that you cannot find articles featuring Parry. A simple google search of news will show anyone her high profile in media/news coverage. Need links? See a few below:
see January 2016 Glamour Magazine. (HKG South China Morning Post Nov 2015) (HKG Standard Newspaper Dec 015) (May Irish Times) (Christian Science Monitor Nov 2015) (Sept 2015) (CBS TV), (Nov 2015),, Dr Phil
There are hundreds others. Interesting that you could not find any. NPOV?
You removed statements supported by citations, having edited content to call those trolling her as "Internet freedom groups". Biased?
One who accuses others of malice[edit]
You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".
This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the talk page in the first instance.
One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources[edit]
You find yourself engaging in discussions about the reliability of sources that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources.
There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you are new to WP but personal attacks are forbidden especially on the talk page per WP:TALK and WP:WPA. I don't know your motives for editing solely on this article and wanting to promote Aftab, but I am assuming good faith per WP:AFG. I ask that you please do the same for me. Wikipedia's rules for content often seem strange and complex to newcomers. I'd be happy to collaborate with you and help you understand them and apply them to this article. I've already tried to explain several things on your talk page. Let's discuss your concerns one item at a time. What source did I remove that you feel is valid for the article? We can discuss it in light of WP:RS and if we disagree we can ask for a third opinion from the general WP community. I am happy to collaborate with you and any others who wish to develop the article in accordance with WP guidelines and policies. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 15:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Ooh I just found this. Not sure I understand what's going on. But I see this. Keithbob wants to help: "I'd be happy to collaborate with anyone..." and wants to help too and provides a number of potentially good sources.
And now I've come along and I hope you both see I added good value; hopefully the thing looks and reads better. So that's three of us. Great. I'm interested to see what Keithbob suggests and I might look through some of those sources the IP added. --Lawfare (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Good additions. Thanks User:Lawfare for helping to upgrade and expand the article using reliable secondary sources!-- KeithbobTalk 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Np. --Lawfare (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove text and source[edit]

I've removed this text and source.

The source is a research paper by a graduate student. Per WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARY such a self published, primary source containing the opinion of one person, is not sufficient for such a strong claim. If a reliable secondary source in the main stream media or a book published by a reputable publishing house, is available, then we can add this content back into the article.-- KeithbobTalk 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this of any value? --Lawfare (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't think so. That appears to be a blog by Parry Aftab. Usually with user created content, people create their own bios for the website. There is no indication that the publication has edited or vetted that information.
Even in her own self-written bio she refers to herself as an expert in cyberlaw, not the founder.-- KeithbobTalk 19:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be self promotion:

CBS News describes her as:

  • Parry Aftab, a well-known Internet safety expert and lawyer [1]
  • cyberbullying expert Parry Aftab, [2] -- KeithbobTalk 20:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Explanation for removed content[edit]

Firstly, per WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph(s) are to briefly summarize content already in the article. It is a brief overview so details about isolated events not mentioned in the body of the article are inappropriate. Other objections include:

  • She created WiredTrust,[1]
    • self published source, non notable see WP:SELFPUB
  • a digital best practices consulting firm, and founded WiredSafety [2]
    • self published source, non notable see WP:SELFPUB
  • and the StopCyberbullying Coalition.[3]
    • A personal blog is not a reliable source per WP:RS
  • She is a public speaker[4][5]
    • see WP:OR. We draw conclusions from a collection of sources. It there is a reliable source that says she is a noted public speaker we can add that to the article.
  • and called upon to testify before governmental bodies on issues ranging from online gambling[6][7][8] to cybersafety[9] and privacy.[10]
    • These are all primary sources, see WP:PRIMARY. While some primary sources are permitted article cannot be based on these kind of low quality sourcing. I'd also caution again about making broad statements and conclusions based on a variety of sources per WP:OR. Lastly, Just because something is mentioned in a primary source does not make it notable. I'd prefer to see a secondary source that says Aftab has given testimony to government bodies X, Y, Z. That would be something worth including in the article. Do we have a source like that?
  • She is a frequent on-air expert for the media.[10]
    • Copyright infringement. The source says "she is a regular on-air expert for the media"
  • Aftab designed the Internet safety program for the Girl Scouts of the USA,[11]
    • An articvle in the Girl Scouts Guide does not make something notable. Please read WP:RS
  • the digital abuse and legal sections of MTV's A Thin Line initiative [12]
    • Not in cited source
  • and Liz Claiborne's Love is Not Abuse digital project. (see MTV citation).
    • Not in cited source-- KeithbobTalk 16:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

-- KeithbobTalk 16:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN[edit]

I've started a discussion at the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard about sourcing for this article. Please feel free to join the discussion here. -- KeithbobTalk 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The upshot of the discussion at BLPN is that this Bloomberg bio is not reliable and shouldn't be used in the article.-- KeithbobTalk 19:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Parry Aftab/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article needs some serious editing to bring it up to an acceptable standard. The section entitled 'Consulting and advisory activities' is entirely uncited, as is the 'Selected honours' section and all but one of the bullet points in 'Selected online activites' section. This article still reads very much like an advertisement, especially where it reads "Her areas of legal expertise are Children Online, Worldwide Cybercrime Protection and Prevention, Privacy, Data Collection and Security, Workplace Risk Management and Security, Consumer Protection, Advertising and the Internet, E-Commerce, Cyberstalking and Harassment, Child Exploitation and Child Pornography. She also works with members of the Internet industry to help build safer products and services." I was going to nominate this article for deletion, but perhaps it would be best to give people time to bring the standard up before that happens. TedStevens 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)