Talk:Barbara Stocking

CNN external link

The subject of this article is Barbara Stocking. User:The Gnome added an external link in this edit [[1]] which I removed with the edit summary 'Off topic - no mention of Stocking found'. The Gnome replaced the CNN link with edit summary

'Restoring ext.link to BBC review of abuse in int'l aid organisations per WP:ELYES #3 on links that "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject"'.

The mention of BBC review when it is a CNN link suggests the possibility of a muddle and that the wrong link has been added.

User:Ghmyrtle removed it a second time with the edit summary 'Link does not mention her, so no grounds for including it'

The Gnome replaced it a second time with the justification given in the edit summary

'Restoring ext.link that is (quoting WP:ELYES) "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" the subject being not strictly Stocking but her part in the Oxfam misconduct in Haiti; link is about GENERAL misconduct of aid agencies'.

This seems to be a selective quote of the full text of WP:ELYES #3 'Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.'

Please could The Gnome explain why the material in the link 'cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article', if not, could they please remove the external link? My opinion is that the CNN source might be suitable for use in another article such as possibly Non-governmental organization which could then be wikilinked to this article if necessary. Please excuse my rather poor layout and use of ' and ". SovalValtos (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I concur. The link does not mention Stocking. Including it allows readers to infer that it somehow relates to Stocking, when there is no cited reference that says it has anything to do with her. Including it would therefore simply be unsourced original research, especially inappropriate in a BLP. I'll remove it again as clearly contrary to policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, we have an article on Sexual exploitation and abuse in humanitarian response, which has barely been updated for years and is clearly inadequate. The pressing need is surely to expand and update that article (or write a better one), rather than trying to shoehorn a link into a biographical article like this one, where there is no source that claims it is relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, SovalValtos, for bringing this up for discussion. A major, if not the most notable-per-sources event, in the life of the article's subject was the significant scandal of Oxfam's responsibility for the sexual abuse in Haiti. Stocking was head of Oxfam at the time; she took an immense amount of criticism for her alleged improper response (or lack of it) when the scandal broke out.

Oxfam is an international aid agency. The BBC link, which was introduced into the article, provides context to the article, on account of the above, of the record of international aid agencies. The information about the conduct, or rather the misconduct (mainly in terms of sexual abuse), of most international agencies in destitute countries around the world, is of obvious encylopaedic interest. (It does not "absolve" Stocking of whatever responsibility she might have and neither does it point fingers. There is no "BLP violation" here.) If I read Stocking's biography, I would evidently be drawn to the one thing that marked her tenure, the sexual abuse scandal, and a contextualizing text like the BBC's would be the first I'd look for online.

There is nowhere in Wikipedia policy requiring that external links or items for further reading have direct and name-quoting relation to the article's subject. Those sections provide further information; they provide context. That's the whole point. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources reporting on the criticisms of Oxfam made specific references to Stocking's personal responsibility, they should be included in the article. But, so far as I can see, they don't. Of course, it's correct that: "The information about the conduct, or rather the misconduct (mainly in terms of sexual abuse), of most international agencies in destitute countries around the world, is of obvious encylopaedic interest." That's why I think it's bizarre that so far no-one has thought to edit the article on Sexual exploitation and abuse in humanitarian response, to include the allegations. That would be a far more appropriate place in which to report the allegations - or link reports about them - than this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. My opinion is that both articles (if not more, provided they^re relevant) can benefit from the context provided by the BBC report. Of course, the BBC is not the only reliable source with this bit of news; it's just the one I chose. The point is, exactly as you write, to provide encyclopaedic information for context and the context is sexual abuse perpetrated by international aid agencies. The article does not lay blame on Stocking; in fact, it blames no specific person. It's about the culture of impunity that somehow was cultivated within those agencies. Stocking was in charge of one such agency when the agency was involved in a major scandal. I believe the BBC report provides context adequate for an "external link." No need for it to be specifically about the subject. -The Gnome (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added a link to her evidence to the Commons Select Committee (here), which in my view is relevant here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Τhat's a most informative link, IMHO. On the subject of this thread, I believe we should consider for the article the ext.link to the BBC report (or any link with that info abt int'l aid agencies in general) with an open mind. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict whilst writing this. I would like to ask User:The Gnome to confirm that they intended the link to be to the BBC rather than CNN. I suggested above that there might have been a muddle, but as BBC has been repeated several times since by the Gnome, the assumption is that BBC was intended. If indeed it was, we need the correct link. Please The Gnome also give a reason that the material provided by the link 'cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article'. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistake; I meant "CNN" all along, SovalValtos. The material in the CNN link is about abuse by int'l aid agencies in general, worlwide, and thus has no place in the main body of this BLP article, IMHO. The context provided by the CNN report should fit well in a "further reading" or "ext.links" section. Take care. - The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)