Talk:Bill Greiner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article creation

This is an article that I created on December 9, 2013, Daniellagreen (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Revision by TheRedPenofDoom

This is a request for comments regarding the original document by editor, Daniellagreen (Green), 14:43, 9 December 2013, and the edits made by TheRedPenofDoom (Red), 14:53, 9 December 2013. Green included citations and references to Blogbymichele, a WordPress website blog. The blog references included in the article support that Greiner had the respect of students. The citations were included to show that support, and to reflect that undergraduate students - in addition to Law School students - respected him. Generally, while blogs might be questionable sources, the references cited support the article and the context of the sentences in which they were included (that Greiner was President of UB, and that he had the respect of students, more specifically in this context, undergraduate students). On researching both of the blog articles, the context in which they were used is, therefore, relevant to the support of the article. The blog author states that she was an undergraduate UB student, that she is a graduate of UB, and her links to LinkedIn, in her education section, and found on both articles, also reflect that she graduated from UB. The blog author provides one or more photographs of herself with President Greiner at UB, further supporting the context for the article. Additionally, she included a primary source document written by Greiner in one of her blog articles that is cited, and she also references the same document in her second blog article that is cited. Therefore, the blog article that includes the primary source document could be considered a secondary source on the article's topic, Bill Greiner. Therefore, both blog articles support, give relevance to, and are of appropriate context to be included in the article. The article was reviewed and accepted for publication in its original form which included both blog articles - they are relevant, support the topic, are not libelous, and include appropriate context. Therefore, they should remain included in the original article, and not deleted by Red. Please comment. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Added minor update. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

obviously blogs are inappropriate sources . what a waste of time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've seen blogs used as sources on other articles, and they are included particularly because they contribute relevance to the article topic and are used in correct context. My research on Wiki sources states that context must be taken into account. So, my take is that, regardless of the source, whether article or person - as in this case of the blog and blog author, they are appropriate for those reasons. Thus, this is a fair issue for discussion. Perhaps we both might learn something from it - that's how I approach it. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

in most cases, if you have seen them used, they have been used improperly. the conditions for appropriately using blogs are very very limited WP:SPS and are not met here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I read that article and several others, including about context and that context must be taken into consideration regarding any article. In the article to which you directed me, I see that sources such as blogs are "largely unacceptable," however that does not mean they are all completely unacceptable. My concern is that the context is valid, as I stated in my initial comments above; I don't believe that was taken into consideration. To me, the blog articles appear reliable, and they support the current article, based on the context in which they were added. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Self published sources like blogs are acceptable in two circumstances. 1) If they were verifiably written by the subject of the article and contain non promotional content that is strictly about themselves. 2) In articles that are not about living people, if the blog is verifiably written by a noted expert who has been previously published by mainstream and/or academic presses in the subject of the article . Neither criteria is even close to being met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Both articles were also published by the UB Alumni Associations on LinkedIn, and have therefore been re-included. Daniellagreen (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The UB Alumni Association wouldn't meet either of the criteria listed above by User:TheRedPenOfDoom, as the association is not the subject of this WP article and it isn't a noted expert published by mainstream and/or academic presses. This would be similar to a company writing an article about how good its CEO is. No encyclopedia could justify using that as the basis for part of an entry. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 11:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My point about context appears to continue to be missed here, and is still not being taken into consideration. It appears that you do whatever you want anyway. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any edits that involve these questionable sources. I haven't meant to, anyway. While they aren't good sources for encyclopedia information, I've stayed away from removing LinkedIn references simply because I know it upsets you. I feel like I'm bending over backwards to help your anger die down and to still comply with WP guidelines. I won't be offended by what you post here, on your user page, or on any talk page, but I feel like the discussions have become sidetracked from what should be our goal - to create a verifiable, objective and neutral article. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 20:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Do what you like to the article. Better yet, I will remove the two references. I'm done. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Through our discussions on our user talk pages, I appreciate that we have heard each other out, and have a better understanding about each other's perspectives. There is more I'd like to do with this article, and build it up more, perhaps toward at least a C-class article with more "reliable" references, lol. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Via RFC. As noted above, blogs, as unvetted, self-published texts, are normally not suitable to use as sources for WP articles (exceptions being where the author is acknowledged expert in the area or where the blog is subject to a form of editorial control from an agency with a reputation for fact-checking). The RFC should have included a link to the relevant blog page for outside commentators. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fiachra, Thanks for your comments, and I understand the guidelines provided by Wikipedia, though there should be additional and more clear information about context, as said guidelines also state that the context of any article must be taken into consideration. The blog links were provided in the request for comments on the 'Biography' main page, but were not included by Wikipedia. Both articles can be found at Blogbymichele, a Wordpress site, and include mentions of the subject, Bill Greiner. As they were cited in the article about the subject, the context in which they were used would have been relevant, which is why Wikipedia should provide additional and more clear guidelines about blogs, especially in relation to context. Daniellagreen (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose use of self-published blogs in this context. Blogs by a notable person can be used only to reference that person's expressed opinions. Blogs by professional journalists under the editorial control of the parent publication can be considered online extensions of the print publication. Other than such narrow exceptions, blogs simply aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, especially for subjective, unquantifiable claims about the "respect of students". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments on this issue now closed; biography discussion tag now removed. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

and everyone has disagreed with the inclusion. please remove them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The blog articles were removed by me on December 13 in case you hadn't noticed, Red. Perhaps you might have reviewed the article first before making your comment. Daniellagreen (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Controversy

I would appreciate the editors, EricEnfermero and TheRedPenOfDoom providing an opportunity and patience in allowing me to edit the article for increased neutrality, and not be "promotional" as they believe it is. I have been incorrectly judged by both editors as writing the article in the manner that a relative of the Greiner family would. I am not a relative, I am not family, and I am not associated with the Greiners. Editors should not assume, and should not judge, and should not contribute to an edit conflict, as both have on this article. Professionalism and courtesy work better than eliminating 2,000 characters of text, four references, and much time and effort invested in building this article. Back off. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

To satisfy the 'slash and burn' ideology of the above-mentioned editors, I reverted their huge edits, and reworked the article to make it more neutral, removing 1,500 characters and two references, rather than their nearly 2,000 characters and four references. The article is much more bland now, for sure! All information currently contained herein is fact and is supported by references. The originator of the article (me) would appreciate others to make contributions to the article in order to build it, and to communicate helpful suggestions regarding that endeavor, rather than simply going in and deleting loads of text, references, and work invested into it. Cooperation is helpful to maintain a good experience. Editors who maintain that they are more experienced should act as such, exercising improved professionalism, communication, and teamwork! Let this man rest in peace. Daniellagreen (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded to the inquiry on my talk page. Here, I'll just add that no editor owns any entry or any portion of any entry, whether or not they originally wrote it. When we see content that clearly doesn't comply with WP guidelines, we don't have to check with the original author in order to remove or edit the clearly inappropriate material. We just fix it. Letting the man rest in peace doesn't really come into the equation because Wikipedia is not a memorial. I can assure you that ideology doesn't come into play for me, except that I share Wikipedia's commitment to neutral and appropriately sourced entries. I hope that we can work together on this and that our decisions are based on WP guidelines. All of the other considerations are really irrelevant. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 10:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have also responded to the comments of EricEnfermero and Buster 7 on my and/or their talk pages, as well as to RedPenOfDoom. This definitely could have been handled better and was not - that is my point. Period. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledged that I could have handled it better by phrasing the edit summary differently. Since I can't go back and do that differently, how can we best proceed so that we can all get back to productively editing the encyclopedia? Is there a lesson to be learned, other than harping on the unrealistic expectation that each editor consults all of the other editors to a page before making a large edit that is completely supported by policy anyway? EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the issue to which I just responded to Buster 7. Just because something is supported by policy doesn't mean its right or cannot be improved. As I explained also to him, I have never experienced anything like this before in the writing arena, and for it to be condoned and/or supported by policy. To consult with other editors who have an investment in the piece is a professional courtesy that I see is not followed here the majority of the time. Isn't it any wonder that people become so upset? And, again, you have misjudged that I am not angry, but hurt and was nearly in tears earlier this morning. I don't treat others that way, and had expected better. If one is simply doing their job by cutting out alot of information without explanation, opportunity for improvement, and openness to communication, then the teachable moment was lost. I am feeling better now, only after the entire day has passed, though I have also learned a valuable lesson that I will not soon forget. Daniellagreen (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Eric, I appreciate that we are on better ground now about this. Both of us have compromised in some ways, and have done better to see each other's points of view. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1