Talk:Denis Handlin
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Abacrombi in topic Why is this a glowing puff piece?
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Why is this a glowing puff piece?
editWhy on earth is this article written to make this man look like the most wonderful music executive who ever lived?
The thing this guy is most known for - in the eyes of the public - is the allegations of inappropriate behaviour and abuse.
Newspapers have covered the abuse allegations for months. Now we have the Australian national broadcaster, the ABC, running a full current affairs documentary dedicated to these abuse allegations. Yet this Wikipedia article remains a puff piece.
The abuse allegations should be in the introduction, and should also be in a dedicated section. It can be worded in terms of what the broadcasters and newspapers have said about him. Lester 02:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with this being a dedicated section, in my opinion these allegations are related wholly to his career (the culture he fostered as Sony) and should be a subsection of that. Further, the existing article probably needs to be checked for bias as I am (perhaps wrongly) detecting quite a lot of it from the above comment.Abacrombi (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)