Talk:Tibor Reich

Please help

Hello, Please can fellow Wiki editors inform us on how to make this page more neutral, within Wikipedia guides. Tiborreich (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, I notice that you say “inform us” rather than “inform me.” Who do you mean by “us”? Is there more than one person using your account? That is not permitted. Or are you editing on behalf of someone else? That is not permitted either. I notice also that you are using “Tiborriech” as a username. That strongly suggests that you are either editing on behalf of the Tibor Reich estate or pretending to do so—neither of which is permitted.

The fact that you use Tiborreich as a username suggests that you have a strong conflict of interest with regard to Reich. And the fact that you are unable to recognize how blatantly promotional your writing is confirms that suspicion. So basically the answer to your question is that because of your conflict of interest there is no way for you (plural) to create a neutral article.

The few sentences that you removed were just the tip of the iceberg; the article needs to be rewritten completely. In light of your conflict of interest it is really pointless, but let me point out a few of the most egregious problems: Your writing is full of peacock terminology. A few examples in the first few lines: “pioneering,” “made its name,” “cutting-edge,” “key.” Of course the real problem with those lines is that you copied them verbatim from http://www.tiborreichtrust.org/overview--tibor-reich-trust.html. And much of the rest of the article is copied verbatim from other pages on the Tibor Reich Trust website. Although it is the purpose of the Trust to be promotional, it is the purpose of Wikipedia to be neutral; so even if copyright problems could be resolved the Trust’s material is inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Tibor Reich appears to notable enough for a an article. So I hope that someone will write an article about him before the article is deleted as promotional and/or a copyright violation. —teb728 t c 23:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your concerns - Please can you substantiate your claims further as every example of information on Tibor Reich is either backed up by footnoted proof or evidence which is further supported in written publications on the period. I am a writer who specialises in post-war Jewish historiography with a particular emphasis on post-war Jewish design history and identity.

Please can you further explain how using such terms as 'cutting edge' do not comply with Wikipedia policy, if these don't then please edit to make it fit for purpose. With regards to the Tibor Reich Trust, this website has drawn on Wikipedia writing, not the other way around as if you look on website information the Trust website only launched two weeks ago.

If you don't see this Wikipedia article fit for purpose you must back this up with specific examples of written content, not base it on evidence you do not hold merely suspicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.185.101 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what “claims” you want me to substantiate. What I said is rather obvious, but since you ask, let me explain point by point:

The original poster in this thread wrote “us” where an individual would normally write “me.” > Read the post.
Shared accounts are not permitted. > See Wikipedia:Username policy#Shared accounts.
The original poster was User:Tiborreich > See the signature.
User:Tiborreich is also the creator of most of the article content. > See the article history.
Editing by users with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. > See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
The the article contains the unattributed peacock terms; for example the lede contains the terms “pioneering,” “made its name,” “cutting-edge,” and “key.” > Read the lede.
The Wikipedia Manual of Style frowns on the use of peacock terms. > See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery.
Much of the article is copied verbatim from the Tibor Reich Trust website. > Compare for example the lede with http://www.tiborreichtrust.org/overview--tibor-reich-trust.html.
The mission of the Tibor Reich Trust is to promote Tibor Reich (which is contrary to the mission of Wikipedia). > See http://www.tiborreichtrust.org/about--tibor-reich-trust.html.

Those are the points I made. Do the point-by-point explanations answer your question?

You mention the footnotes in the article. The footnotes do not negate the facts that the article is written like an advert, and that much of it is copied from a promotional website. The solution is that someone (other than User:Tiborreich, who has a conflict of interest) needs to rewrite the article from the cited sources and not from Tibor Reich Trust material. —teb728 t c 06:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tigo Ware

Be aware that the heading contains a hyphen, this is not correct and I intend to edit it, unless someone can provide contrary evidence. I have an original pre-Denby leaflet produced by Tibor which specifically states 'Tigo Ware'. Martski22 (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no objection to my point I will edit the heading in a week or so. Please provide evidence to the contrary, if you can, to support no change. Martski22 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]