Talk:Preet Bharara/Archives/2015

This article is filled with POV, self published material, and Promotion for Bharara.

A full cleanup is needed.

• LEAD serves as a promotion for Bharara: According to Wikipedia’s policy the in the opening paragraph WP:LEAD “The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.”

In this case the Lead serves as POV and Promotion for Bahara. Rather than summarizing key points - it states how Bharara is the "person of the year" and one of the "most influential people in the world" and how he prosecuted a terrorist etc.

(This should lead us to go and investigate past contributors that may have had a close tie to Bharara).

• Article itself filled with POV Pushing and Promotion: The article is also plagued with POV pushing. For example, in the beginning of the article there is an entire lengthy speech of Bharara how he does not like to take away liberty of people (from a low profile publisher).

• Lack of sources: Some sections lack sources. For example, the Entire Toyota section is not sourced at all. It needs to be removed from WP:BLP policy.

• Self published:Much of the article is sourced on news outlets from Bharara’s office – despite the available secondary sources. This violates multiple rules in the WP:NPOV including “Bias in sources It also violates the limited allowance of WP:BLPSELFPUB since it involves claims about third parties. It could could mean PR and POV pushing into versions press releases that Bharara’s office wants out in public.

These sources should all be removed and the article should be based on highly qualified secondary published sources. Contacter1 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Contacter1 All the problems you see here should be addressed. It is fine that if you are worried about having your name associated with politics that you use a new account. Feel free to edit the article. I watch this also.

Personally, I do not think there is any special manipulation of this article or any coordinated effort to make it biased. A lot of content came from Special:Contributions/Oosasdny, who edited the article a bit in 2012 then left Wikipedia. That person might have been a close tie but I do not think they intended to bias Wikipedia. Otherwise the article has been edited by a typical number of people in my opinion. The problems you see in the article's content are real. I just think there is no reason to believe any ill-will here and I hope you feel safe editing this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced password from last time I logged in :) I am Contacter1

You are right - for now let us focus on improving the article. (Although I did see a few additional editors but let us put that aside). I have a long list of other articles I am working on (aside from full time work and family) - It will take time but let us start.

We will begin with the lead - even though that will need to always be modified based on the article. We will then remove self promotional, poorly/non sourced and self published where other sources are available. We will also replace as needed. Contacter2 (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As I look into the sources I see that not only is there so much self publishing - but also the few sources that are brought are falsely presented to promote Bharara. Instead of summarizing the source and bringing all viewpoints - a they take out a single sentence that promotes Bharara's office. Contacter2 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)