Talk:Joann Fletcher

message: This is a criticism to whoever wrote the review on Ms. Fletcher's book: Your review should be reported because it shows personal opinion, as well as utter nonsense.  Besides, if the book is anything like the documentary, it will be very interesting
The person who posted on 23 Dec. 2007 is correct. This 'documentary' would only be 'interesting' to those who find humor in the absurd. It is evident to anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of Egyptology that this 'documentary' is more of a collection of fantastical imaginings than any remotely scientific theories. Further, it seems evident by the above comment that this page is being maintained by a Joann Fletcher sympathizer (or someone who knows nothing of Egyptology, or both). To whom can I report this? Wikipedia has had enough issues with inaccuracies in the past; this cannot help.
::I've seen the documentary and there isn't enough criticism in this article. The conclusions about the three mummies are running in circles. The defaced mummy might be a woman, but that is not important. Dr. Fletcher is often explaining her assumption by using other assumptions of her making. I am working in the field of archeology and my dissertation mentor would have dropped me like a hot potato had I produced such results with my work.85.179.222.90 (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Joann Fletcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927131223/http://www.zahihawass.com/wc_no_discrimination.htm to http://www.zahihawass.com/wc_no_discrimination.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joann Fletcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127100708/http://www.barnsley.ac.uk/news/college-return-for-dr-joann-fletcher?page=7 to http://www.barnsley.ac.uk/news/college-return-for-dr-joann-fletcher?page=7
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently (3/19/19) the article ends thus: 'Fletcher got the Hawass ban lifted and was working again in the Valley of the Kings in April 2008.  The scientists who were involved in the subject research are adamant that the research proves the KV35YL mummy is more likely than not the mummy of Nefertiti. [13]'  The source is an article from The Star, a publication which may or may not meet Wikipedia standards, but regardless, the key information that, 'scientists who were involved in the subject research are adamant... the KV35YL mummy is more likely than not the mummy of Nefertiti' is nowhere stated in the article, which is merely a personal interview/puff piece.  I am removing the last sentence.  
Also, the general archaeological consensus is that these findings are balderdash- although we must adhere to the standards for biographies of living persons, there need to be honest evaluations of their work, otherwise this isn't an encyclopedia but just public relations, with all the reliability that field entails.  How do I flag this article to avoid such future attempts at distorting the truth?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:479E:91F0:C952:D887:1A4F (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The mummy of Nefertiti

message: and  are both single-purpose accounts, meaning they have only contributed to this biographic article, and IMO were likely established for the purpose of making changes to only this article. The extent and content of the specialist-knowledge changes suggests one or both may be the subject of the article, or someone closely connected.
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest relates to "...contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships" and further states "COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but should propose changes on article talk pages instead".--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed the article for bias, and found the majority as it currently exists is written in neutral tone, and simply presents cited biographical information regarding the subject. I made some edits to reduce an excessively negatively-biased body without removing any objective facts surrounding her dispute with Egypt's Zahi Hawass. As it stands, I believe the article is ready for removal of the COI tag and have done so. LiamJSP (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of Interest editing