Jump to content

Talk:Alex Breingan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attempted censorship of this article

[edit]

A number of editors have been removing material from this article, ostensibly on the basis that it is "negative". The material is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources, and seems relevant (the fact that there has been sustained coverage means that its absence would render the article incomplete). The fact that it is "negative" - that the subject or their PR people might not like it - is not a reason for removal.--IdiotSavant (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the previous iteration of this article (and other articles related to Breingan's business interests) was the subject of a sustained campaign of promotional edits by a sock network. See

Given what is happening here I'm wondering if we need another sock investigation.--IdiotSavant (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that is so you should file an SPI with your evidence rather than making vague hints of accusations. Cabayi (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-sided Pieces from a reporter (Please note)

[edit]

Though I understand that Wikipedia isn't censored, a lot of these articles under the financial issues are from a single reporter which seems to share anything about the subject that they can find. Can we clean this up as it's very unbalanced. Only a few of the articles are written by another news outlet, information about the receivership overall and another production company website that had been found, but everything else is cited from a single reporter in the NZ Herald. I don't think this seems fair on the subject and this should be looked at. Information about the furniture issue in Los Angeles was a civil dispute not one that needed to be published or shared here. I don't know the subject but I have been following the story and I have seen how unfair the media has been. That's just my opinion. Thank you! MonkeyMonkeyHere (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the New Zealand Herald's coverage is unfair, you should raise it directly with them, or with the New Zealand Media Council. Wikipedia is not the proper place to litigate such issues. IdiotSavant (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kickstarter and other studios

[edit]

@IdiotSavant Wikipedia is supposed to summarise what is reported in secondary sources not provide details of every news update on a subject. The content itself is given far too much weight, why is a failed kickstarter project more important than his work for Food TV and Living Channel? Per WP:VNOT you need to seek consensus for restoring this content. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally articles about producers include information about their notable projects. And these projects have become notable because of the context of business failure and an attempt to restart a career they have been reported in. Given the complaint about Wikipedia:Proseline over on WPBIO, maybe now is the time to rewrite them to better reflect that.
I would say there was consensus for its inclusion before the censorship campaign stepped up a notch this month. Of course, consensus can change... IdiotSavant (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've violated 3RR, please self-revert. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]