Talk:Sylvia Blyden

npov tags, et al

I am seconding JNW's addition of npov, tone and essay tags. The current text is full of wp:peacock terms which simply are not substantiated with any sources. For instance, the first reference does not confirm "She has over the years, won over many people to become her unabashed admirers". --Blehfu (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your view but not mine. There are loads and loads of so-called Biographies that you have approved which have absolutely no reference. It appears that you are all set to demean as evidenced by you previously wanting her to be cited as a controversial figure. Come on guys. We are not stupid you know. I can cite at least one dozen biographies that you have not NPOV, TONE and ESSAY but which have absolutely no referenced materials.Yema.bangura (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I assure you that this accusatory tone is absolutely unnecessary. I, by my own admission, know nothing about this person in this article; however, upon reading it, I concur with the other editor that it needs copying editing; this in no way is a judgment on Ms. Blyden. Please review wp:peacock to see what terms and words should be avoided when editing on wikipedia. Blehfu (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is this biography, not others; anyone is welcome to improve an article. However, articles are expected to be neutral, and this is clearly not. I'm not familiar with the subject, but believe she merits a serious article, not a public relations piece suggesting conflict of interest. It can be rewritten to follow WP:NPOV, using the references that have recently been added. JNW (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall supply one example that concerns me: The first stated reference [1], does neither confirm nor deny the statements,

...easily one of Sierra Leone’s most admired women currently. She has over the years, won over many people to become her unabashed admirers.

If I have missed something in the referenced article which does indeed confirm these statements, please let me know. Otherwise, a more neutral tone is required here. Blehfu (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that Yema.bangura used the edit summary, "removed attempt to make a mockery of my work". The problem with the article is precisely that it makes a mockery of Sylvia Blyden. The obsequious puffery only makes her look ridiculous, and Yema.bangura is doing her no service by posting such drivel to what is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do people have to be so unpleasant? I am just curiousYema.bangura (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring guidelines, writing in an inappropriate tone, apparently editing the same article using several accounts, accusing another editor of bad faith, and deleting others' comments doesn't start things off well. I or someone else will look over the references, which I thank you for providing, and rewrite the article in the near future. JNW (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

ok. Thanks for the offer to re-write. I look forward to learning from your re-written work and then i will compare your work with others. By the way, who else is working on the Sylvia Blyden page? I thought I was the only admirer of the great lady? I must be wrong then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.67.49 (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)