| 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. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Whitewashing edit
Please be aware that this page is regularly whitewashed to remove any content, including sourced publicly available information, that does not suit the positive narrative of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.153.26 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This includes the fact that Farnell has twice been cleared in court, once on charges relating to perjury and a second on a charge of assault. Both cases were covered by reputable sources (Yorkshire Post/BBC) It is a fact that he twice stood trial and was cleared of the offences, Therefore they cannot be libelous.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/football/leeds-united/latest-leeds-united-news/leeds-united-takeover-adviser-chris-farnell-cleared-attacking-wife-their-luxury-home-1846059 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-34312416 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.218.175 (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- IP editor User:81.168.45.187 has now reverted the inclusion of details of the two court cases involving Farnell three times, contravening WP:3RR. Their edit summaries label the details "inaccurate and deliberately misleading" despite being based on reliable sources. The editor has not responded to messages left on their user Talk page, nor contributed to this Talk page; I note that their deletions have led another editor to add a COI flag, presumably relating to User:81.168.45.187. I have reinstated the paragraph and citations. I have also reinstated a reference regarding Cristiano Ronaldo, with new wording that is, I think, less ambiguous. Paul W (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- IP editor User:81.5.133.9 (possibly same editor as User:81.168.45.187) inserted text into my note above saying "even though based on sources supposedly reliable they are only tabloid stories which cannot hold up on their own as additional sources needed if tabloid is used as a primary source." Paul W (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- First, please learn how to use Talk pages. Second, Yorkshire Post is not a redtop tabloid, nor is the BBC News website. Both are reliable sources. Paul W (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- IP editor User:81.5.133.9 (possibly same editor as User:81.168.45.187) inserted text into my note above saying "even though based on sources supposedly reliable they are only tabloid stories which cannot hold up on their own as additional sources needed if tabloid is used as a primary source." Paul W (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- The page has been semi-protected by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see the tabloid part has been taken out of the disclaimer, seeing as it was there before and has now been removed, there is an active attempt on this page to defame the person of the article in question and request this page be locked from any editing, this means someone is actively using the white-washing as an excuse to keep up libellous and defamatory nature of updating this article. there is no need for these references other than to try and defame the person in the article. And Paul a question to you, why are you actively watching this page for changes? are you personally invested in such a person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.133.9 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure how reporting facts that are reliably reported by reputable sources is "libellous". Their inclusion is about balance WP:NPOV - fairly and proportionately reflecting significant views (positive and negative) from reputable sources. And I have no personal or other direct or indirect connection with the subject; I have a watchlist of over 900 articles to which I have contributed. Paul W (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I see the tabloid part has been taken out of the disclaimer, seeing as it was there before and has now been removed, there is an active attempt on this page to defame the person of the article in question and request this page be locked from any editing, this means someone is actively using the white-washing as an excuse to keep up libellous and defamatory nature of updating this article. there is no need for these references other than to try and defame the person in the article. And Paul a question to you, why are you actively watching this page for changes? are you personally invested in such a person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.133.9 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
A few points that should be clarified. Wikipedia policy is that all articles are written from a neutral point of view and that the article is balanced. Sourced information has been regularly deleted whilst other un-referenced information has been included. For instance how is the fact that he has a German Sheppard dog relevant to the article, but being tried for perjury relating to his profession is not. Whitewashing is defined as deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about (someone or something). The removal of portions of the article which were added to move the article away from being labelled as an advertisement. There is also a distinction that defamation is to damage the good reputation of (someone); slander or libel. All text is publicly sourced information that can viewed on reputable sites and can be found on court lists. His disqualification of being a football club director and being investigated by Solicitors Regulation Authority are both not included within the article. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.49.70.172 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
March 2022 update; whitewashing appears to have recommenced with removal of details about his involvements in football clubs 2800:A4:17AE:B800:FDDB:DBF2:E158:2E10 (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Cases/club involvement edit
Previously Farnell's work whilst in relation to a number of clubs specifically Leeds (where he made headlines) and Bury where he was involved when the club were expelled from the football league (the first time in 30 years a club was removed) were moved from the main section to the clients section. These have now been removed as such, these interactions are no longer on the page. These should be reinstated as they are sourced information and some of the most high profile cases that he is known for working on. Also there should be a separation of particular cases and his involvement in the running of clubs. His work at QPR appears to extend to solely the court case but Charlton, Wigan, Swansea, Leeds, Bury and Burnley extend beyond the scope of cases into the wider running of the clubs.
Citations edit
The page is locked due to the appearance of the someone appearing to be close to Farnell. Many of the edits during this time resulted in additional information being added that is lacking citations, can they be included or the text amended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:A4:178D:A300:F9AD:7BCC:38DB:9A7B (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
April 2023 discussion edit
I have had some recent discussions about this article with a COI editor - see User talk:Edwardlucy, section on Chris Farnell. Paul W (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)