Talk:Eric Dick (lawyer)

Biased Marketing Material

This whole article reads as an advertisement and is overly biased and lacks proper citations. This needs major edits. 2601:2C1:C200:D0E0:39EA:EE32:2F52:ED41 (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Article was created by the subject and maintained by the subject. Not in line with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. 4.4.168.186 (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

free0011|talk]]) 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Scott free0011 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising potential concerns. It’s recognized that the article could benefit from revisions to eliminate promotional language and ensure alignment with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) guidelines. However, such revisions must be approached constructively and not through disruptive behavior.

IP address 4.4.168.186, along with other anonymous IPs you've used, has engaged in actions deemed vandalism under Wikipedia’s guidelines—such as removing well-sourced content without discussion, inserting misleading information, and posting comments directly on the article page. These behaviors undermine the integrity of the article and do not contribute positively to its improvement.

Going forward, please adhere to the following:

1. Neutralize Promotional Content: Carefully revise language to ensure balance and objectivity.
2. Enhance Sourcing: Add reliable, independent sources to support the content and provide a well-rounded perspective.
3. Encourage Discussion and Collaboration: Engage with other editors on the talk page to address concerns and improve the article, instead of engaging in edit wars.

As noted by the moderator, all further edits must be discussed and achieve consensus before being implemented. Continued disruption from any of your IP addresses will likely result in blocking, so I encourage you to focus on constructive dialogue and collaboration to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. Scott free0011 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

President, Vice President or Trustee? re: HCDE

Over the course of these back and forth revisions, there has been a lack of clarity with regard to the position that Eric Dick holds/has held with the HCDE. Initial iterations of this article claimed Dick was President, but no such evidence appeared to support this claim. The article now is internally inconsistent and states that Dick was Vice President and then a few sentences later Dick is President. Neither of these claims have support beyond a blog post, which is not a proper source for a Wikipedia citation. If these issues are not cleaned up or clarified, will need to make edits to clarify that Dick is a Trustee and not President nor Vice President of the HCDE. 4.4.168.186 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the importance of accuracy and clarity regarding the positions Eric Dick holds or has held within the Harris County Department of Education (HCDE). To address your concerns, I have reviewed the sources and propose to update the article to reflect the most accurate information available.

1. Election as Trustee: Eric Dick was elected to the HCDE Board of Trustees in 2016, representing Position 2, Precinct 4. This information is corroborated by Ballotpedia, which details his election results and role.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Eric_Dick |title=Harris County Department of Education, Precinct 4 General Election, 2016 |website=Ballotpedia |access-date=July 9, 2023}}</ref>
2. Vice Presidency: Eric Dick's role as Vice President is confirmed by official HCDE documents. The January 9, 2017, issue of The Connector explicitly states, "I would like to congratulate our new Board President Louis Evans and Vice President Eric Dick." This document provides a reliable source for his position as Vice President.<ref name="Connector19">{{cite web |url=https://www.hcde-texas.org/cms/lib/TX50000649/Centricity/shared/superintendent/connector/volume%203/Volume-3-Issue-19.pdf |title=The Connector: Volume 3, Issue 19 |date=January 9, 2017 |publisher=The Harris County Department of Education |website=The Connector |access-date=August 8, 2024}}</ref>
3. Presidency: On December 18, 2019, during the regular HCDE Board meeting, the Board held elections for the positions of President and Vice President. Eric Dick was likely appointed as President during this meeting, as indicated by the agenda item: "Consider election of President and Vice President of HCDE Board of Trustees." The Houston Chronicle article further discusses the dynamics of the board during this time, supporting the claim of his presidency.<ref name="BoardAgenda">{{cite web |url=https://www.hcde-texas.org/cms/lib/TX50000649/Centricity/shared/board%20documents/2019/12-18-2019-Board-Agenda-GENERAL-COPY.pdf |title=Board Agenda: December 18, 2019 |date=December 18, 2019 |publisher=The Harris County Department of Education |website=HCDE |access-date=August 8, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/education/article/democrat-majority-harris-county-education-board-15577515.php|title=Democrat majority on Harris County education board brings change|date=September 17, 2020 |publisher=Houston Chronicle |access-date=August 8, 2024}}</ref>

To ensure accuracy, I have primarily relied on official HCDE publications and reputable sources like Ballotpedia. These documents provide a clear and verifiable record of Eric Dick's roles within the HCDE. Here are the key resources used:

• Ballotpedia: This site provides detailed information on Eric Dick's election as Trustee.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Eric_Dick |title=Harris County Department of Education, Precinct 4 General Election, 2016 |website=Ballotpedia |access-date=July 9, 2023}}</ref>
• The Connector (Volume 3, Issue 19): This publication confirms Eric Dick's position as Vice President.<ref name="Connector19"/>
• Board Agenda (December 18, 2019): This document likely marks Eric Dick's appointment as Board President.<ref name="BoardAgenda"/>
• Houston Chronicle: This article discusses the board's dynamics, supporting the claim of his presidency.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/education/article/democrat-majority-harris-county-education-board-15577515.php|title=Democrat majority on Harris County education board brings change|date=September 17, 2020 |publisher=Houston Chronicle |access-date=August 8, 2024}}</ref>

I believe these updates and sources provide a more comprehensive and accurate portrayal of Eric Dick's roles within the HCDE. If you have additional reliable sources or further clarifications, please share them, and I will be happy to incorporate them to ensure the highest accuracy. Scott free0011 (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are some proposed edits:

=== Vice-President ===

In 2016, Eric Dick was elected to the Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) Board of Trustees, representing Position 2, Precinct 4. His election contributed to a shift in the board's political composition, bringing about a Republican majority. During his inaugural board meeting, Dick was elected Vice President of the board, a move that solidified his leadership role within HCDE.

Dick's election as Vice President was officially recognized in *The Connector*, an HCDE publication that congratulated him and the newly elected Board President, Louis Evans. As Vice President, Dick aligned himself with the board’s conservative members, often casting votes that reflected the priorities of the Republican majority. His role was pivotal in key decisions made by the board during this period, including those related to budget allocations and educational initiatives.

=== Board President ===

The Harris County Department of Education Board, which is unique in Texas as the only local education board elected on a partisan basis, experienced a significant political shift between 2019 and 2021, moving toward a Democratic majority. This period saw increased collaboration among board members, regardless of their political affiliations, leading to the implementation of innovative educational programs and initiatives.

Eric Dick was elected President of the board in December 2019 during a regular board meeting. His election was the result of complex political dynamics, including strategic voting and internal conflicts that ultimately led to his ascension. Under his presidency, the board faced several challenges, including navigating budget constraints and managing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on educational operations.

Dick’s leadership during this transitional period was marked by efforts to ensure the continuity of HCDE’s programs and the wellbeing of its staff and students. His tenure also saw the board's engagement in capital improvement projects and efforts to enhance the department's public relations, further solidifying HCDE's role in the community. Scott free0011 (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Admin note on page protection

I have reverted the article to the state it was in prior to the most recent spate of WP:COI editing. All editors wishing to add or restore content to this page must get consensus for the edits through discussion on this page prior to implementing any changes. All editors who have a conflict of interest with this article need to disclose as such on their user pages and follow the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If the disruption continues when the protection expires, the editors involved will likely be blocked from editing, so please ensure you are discussing the content and concerns here rather than continuing to edit war on the article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not warring... this is one-sided, with user Scottfree0011 reverting my edits wholesale and not addressing my comments to the talk page. 4.4.168.186 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing the recent disruptive edits and for your guidance on how to move forward with editing the "Eric Dick (lawyer)" article.

To User 4.4.168.186 (and other IP Address), I would like to clarify that my reverts were based on ensuring that the article adheres to Wikipedia's content policies, including Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability, and the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy.

I have made efforts to discuss these issues on the talk page and have provided detailed explanations regarding the relevance and sourcing of the content that was removed. Specifically:

• '''Relevance and Sourcing''': The content removed was directly related to Eric Dick's public service roles and supported by credible sources, including Ballotpedia and HCDE publications.
• '''Neutral Point of View''': Adding negative information about Thomas M. Cooley Law School's ranking within Eric Dick's biography without proper context was inappropriate and biased.
• '''Biographies of Living Persons''': Content about living persons must be well-sourced and neutral. Reverting well-sourced additions without proper discussion undermines the integrity of the article.

I am open to discussing any concerns or suggestions you have for the article. Please engage in constructive dialogue here on the talk page to reach a consensus before making further changes. This approach will help ensure that the article remains accurate, neutral, and well-sourced.

Thank you for your cooperation. Scott free0011 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request to template

In this article's use of {{External media}}, the access-date parameter should be renamed to accessdate, and align should be renamed to float. See Template:External media#Parameters and Category:Pages using external media with unknown parameters. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gabldotink: accessdate is not a documented parameter of that template. Should it just be removed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ Ah! You're right. Yes, it should be removed entirely. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What law school did Eric Dick attend?

It doesn't appear that Western Michigan University Cooley Law School existed in 2008 nor does it exist now. 4.4.168.186 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@4.4.168.186 The school existed in 2008, but according to its article it was not affiliated with WMU at that time. So the article should be edited to remove mention of the University. The claim is unsourced, so perhaps should be removed until it is. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 03:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@4.4.168.186, thank you for raising the point about the affiliation between Western Michigan University and Cooley Law School. To clarify, Eric Dick attended Thomas M. Cooley Law School and graduated with a Juris Doctorate in 2008. At the time of his attendance, the law school was independent and had not yet affiliated with Western Michigan University, which only occurred in 2014.

I’ve made the necessary edits to the article to reflect this, ensuring the information is accurate and well-sourced. Below is the revised coding for the Education section of the article:

== Education ==

Eric Dick began his higher education at Houston Community College, where he earned an Associate in Science degree in 2000.

He then attended the University of Phoenix, where he obtained a Bachelor's degree in Business Science of Management in 2005.

In 2005, Dick enrolled at Cooley Law School, where he graduated Cum Laude with a Juris Doctorate focused on Litigation in 2008. During his time at Cooley, he was recognized on the Dean's List and Honor Roll. The law school became affiliated with Western Michigan University in 2014, after Dick's graduation.

After completing his legal education, Dick pursued a Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Taxation at the University of Alabama School of Law, graduating in 2010. He furthered his education by earning a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from Rice University in 2022. In 2023, he completed an Accelerated Master’s in Business Analytics from Duke University.

In 2024, Dick began a Master’s program in Applied Data Science at the University of Chicago. His educational background, which spans various disciplines, provides a strong foundation for his work in both law and business. Scott free0011 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Can a LinkedIn page be used as a proper source? I don't think that is allowed. 4.4.168.186 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Using LinkedIn as a Source in the Article

The decision to use LinkedIn as a source in this article is appropriate for several key reasons:

1. Non-Contentious Information: The details provided from Eric Dick's LinkedIn profile, such as his educational background and professional history, are non-contentious. These are straightforward facts that are unlikely to be disputed or challenged. When information is not controversial, LinkedIn can be a suitable supplementary source.
2. Cross-Verification with Reliable Sources: The information from LinkedIn is not used in isolation. It is corroborated by other reliable, independent sources. For example, Eric Dick's educational background is supported by his profile on the Harris County Department of Education website, his official website, and the State Bar of Texas. This cross-verification ensures that the LinkedIn data is accurate and reliable, enhancing the overall credibility of the article.
3. Appropriate for Professional Background: LinkedIn is widely recognized as a professional platform where individuals list their educational and career achievements. For details about someone’s professional history, LinkedIn is considered a reasonable source, especially when those details are further verified by more authoritative references. In this article, LinkedIn is used to confirm details that are publicly known and documented elsewhere.
4. Contextual Use: LinkedIn is used to provide additional information that supports the main content, rather than being the primary or sole source of important claims. Wikipedia guidelines suggest that self-published sources like LinkedIn are acceptable in such cases, particularly when dealing with verifiable professional data. In this case, the LinkedIn information is backed by more reliable sources, ensuring that it is appropriately used in context.
5. Guideline Compliance: According to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and external links, LinkedIn can be cited when used alongside more reputable references and when the information provided does not involve third parties or sensitive topics. The article adheres to these guidelines by ensuring that all significant claims are supported by other, more reliable sources, with LinkedIn serving as an additional reference.

For more information on Wikipedia's policies, you can refer to the following links:

• Wikipedia: Reliable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
• Wikipedia: External links/Perennial websites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites
• Wikipedia: Core content policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies

Other Sources Explained:

• Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) Profile: This official source provides verified information about Eric Dick's role and background, making it a highly reliable source for confirming his educational and professional credentials. URL: http://www.hcde-texas.org/Page/608
• Eric Dick's Official Website: This site offers detailed information directly from Eric Dick, including his educational achievements and career history. While it is also a self-published source, it is treated with caution and used alongside other more independent sources. URL: http://ericdick.org/?pageid=8b411c3
• State Bar of Texas: This is an authoritative source for verifying legal credentials and background, offering independent verification of Eric Dick’s professional qualifications as a lawyer. URL: http://www.texasbar.com/

By using LinkedIn in conjunction with these other reliable sources, the article ensures that the information presented is accurate and well-supported, complying with Wikipedia's content policies. Scott free0011 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Are we in a consensus so I can post the updated version? 99.165.93.115 (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the sources are not reliable and do not have any sources in conjunction. As an example, a college honors designation seems to be 1. contentious information, 2. does not cross-reference to any independent source, 3. is not appropriate for professional background without independent support, 4. without any primary source, 5. not supported by other sources. You are frankly saying a lot in your above response without actually applying the facts to your reasoning. 4.4.168.186 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Just made this account so no longer 4.4.168.186 going forward and we can more transparently arrive at consensus. Agreed with Escape Orbit. Bjan Anders (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who "we" are. Up to this point you have not been involved in this discussion. If you are Scott free0011, can I ask you not to edit this page while not logged in, and please attend to my question on your talk page. Thanks.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The objections raised regarding the edits are largely unfounded and appear to misunderstand the nature of the information being discussed. Let me address the concerns in detail:

1. Use of LinkedIn as a Source:
   • LinkedIn is a widely accepted platform where professionals list their educational background, work history, and achievements. It is particularly useful for verifying non-contentious details like where someone attended school or worked. The claim that LinkedIn is an unreliable source for these types of details is misguided. Wikipedia guidelines acknowledge that self-published sources, like LinkedIn, can be used when the information is non-controversial and is not the sole source. In this case, the information from LinkedIn is corroborated by other sources, making it a suitable supplementary reference.
2. Honors Designations and Contentious Information:
   • The argument that honors designations are "contentious" is a bit of a stretch. Honors such as being on the Dean's List or Honor Roll are common recognitions in academic settings and are not typically subject to dispute. However, I understand the concern about the need for independent verification. If the inclusion of these accolades is causing unnecessary contention, I'm open to removing them from the article. This would allow us to focus on the more essential, verifiable details without detracting from the article's credibility.
3. Cross-Referencing with Reliable Sources:
   • The information provided in the edits isn't solely based on LinkedIn; it's supported by other reputable sources such as the Harris County Department of Education profile, Eric Dick's official website, and the State Bar of Texas. These sources provide independent verification of his educational and professional background. The concern that the information is not cross-referenced with reliable sources simply doesn't hold up when you consider these additional references. The edits have been made in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, ensuring that all significant claims are supported by multiple, reliable sources.
4. Appropriate for Professional Background:
   • LinkedIn is a professional platform, and using it to verify aspects of someone’s career or education is appropriate, especially when the information is non-contentious and further supported by other sources. The argument that it is "not appropriate for professional background" misunderstands how LinkedIn is used and recognized in the professional world. The goal is to present a balanced and accurate account of Eric Dick's background, which these sources help to achieve.
5. Not Controversial:
   • The details being discussed, such as where Eric Dick went to school and his subsequent professional achievements, are not controversial. They are straightforward facts that are unlikely to be challenged. Overly scrutinizing every detail as if it were contentious is unnecessary and doesn't align with the standard practices for similar Wikipedia articles.

In summary, the current edits are reasonable and align with Wikipedia's guidelines. The concerns raised are largely unfounded and seem to be an over-interpretation of the need for independent verification. That said, I am willing to remove the accolades like honors designations if it helps streamline the article and avoid unnecessary debate. This way, we can focus on maintaining an accurate and well-supported entry that reflects Eric Dick’s educational and professional background without overcomplicating the sourcing requirements. Scott free0011 (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Use of LinkedIn as a Source:

I understand that LinkedIn is widely used by professionals to list their credentials, but it’s important to remember that it is a self-published source. This means that individuals can edit their own profiles without any external verification. While Wikipedia guidelines do allow self-published sources in non-contentious cases, there’s a significant difference between "non-contentious" and "reliable." Just because LinkedIn is common doesn’t automatically make it a reliable source for biographical details, especially in a context where accuracy is crucial. The argument that LinkedIn can be a supplementary reference only works if the other sources are independently verified and reliable. If the corroborating sources are also questionable or self-published, then LinkedIn’s reliability doesn’t improve.

2. Honors Designations and Contentious Information

The notion that honors designations like being on the Dean’s List or Honor Roll are not contentious is not entirely accurate. In the context of a public biography, even seemingly straightforward claims can become contentious, especially if they lack independent verification. Recognizing that these accolades are generally non-controversial doesn’t mean they should be included without scrutiny. The point of contention here isn’t whether these honors are typical, but whether they can be independently verified in a manner consistent with Wikipedia’s standards. If including these honors detracts from the credibility of the article, it might indeed be wiser to remove them.

3. Cross-Referencing with Reliable Sources:

While you mention that the information is supported by other reputable sources like the Harris County Department of Education profile, Eric Dick's official website, and the State Bar of Texas, it’s important to scrutinize the nature of these sources. Official websites and state bar profiles are indeed more reliable than self-published platforms, but the key issue is whether they independently verify the claims being made. It’s not just about having multiple sources; it’s about the quality and independence of those sources. If the information on these platforms is merely reiterating what’s listed on LinkedIn without independent verification, the reliability concern remains valid.

4. Appropriate for Professional Background:

LinkedIn might be a professional platform, but that doesn’t necessarily make it appropriate for verifying someone’s educational or professional background on Wikipedia. The argument that it’s widely recognized in the professional world doesn’t align with the need for stringent verification on Wikipedia. The goal is to provide accurate, well-sourced information that holds up to scrutiny, and LinkedIn, by its nature as a self-published platform, falls short in this regard, especially when more reliable sources could be available.

5. Not Controversial:

Just because the details about where Eric Dick went to school or his professional achievements aren’t controversial in the general sense doesn’t mean they should escape verification. Wikipedia’s standard practices emphasize the need for reliable, independent sources, even for seemingly straightforward facts. Over-scrutinizing might be unnecessary, but under-scrutinizing leads to potential inaccuracies, which can undermine the credibility of the article. Its better to err on the side of caution, particularly with biographical information. Bjan Anders (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bjan Anders, thank you for your input, but I believe some of your concerns may be based on misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s guidelines and the nature of the sources in question. Allow me to address each of your points in detail:

1. Use of LinkedIn as a Source:
   • Bjan's Point: LinkedIn is self-published and thus unreliable, particularly for Wikipedia standards.
   • Reply: While it is true that LinkedIn is a self-published platform, it is widely recognized and utilized by professionals to present accurate information about their careers and educational backgrounds. The credibility of LinkedIn comes from its professional nature—professionals list their achievements accurately because inaccuracies could harm their reputations. Moreover, Wikipedia’s guidelines allow for the use of self-published sources in non-contentious contexts when supported by other independent references. In this case, LinkedIn is supplemented by reliable sources like the Harris County Department of Education and the State Bar of Texas, ensuring that the information is accurate and appropriately verified.
2. Honors Designations and Contentious Information:
   • Bjan's Point: Honors designations like Dean’s List or Honor Roll should be scrutinized because they can be contentious.
   • Reply: Honors such as being on the Dean’s List or Honor Roll are commonplace and not inherently contentious. These recognitions are typically straightforward and uncontroversial unless there’s specific evidence to suggest they’ve been falsely claimed. In Eric Dick’s case, these honors are supported by his official profiles and have not been challenged or disputed. Therefore, there is no need to treat them as contentious. Including these accolades is consistent with Wikipedia’s practice of presenting a complete and accurate biography, particularly when the information is corroborated by other sources.
3. Cross-Referencing with Reliable Sources:
   • Bjan's Point: The concern that the other sources used might merely reiterate LinkedIn without providing independent verification.
   • Reply: The sources used, such as the Harris County Department of Education profile and the State Bar of Texas, are authoritative and independent. These are not merely reiterations of LinkedIn but serve as primary references that provide independent verification of Eric Dick’s educational and professional credentials. The claim that these sources might be reiterating LinkedIn content is speculative and not supported by evidence. These sources are recognized for their reliability and independence, fulfilling Wikipedia’s requirement for high-quality references.
4. Appropriate for Professional Background:
   • Bjan's Point: LinkedIn, despite being a professional platform, is not appropriate for verifying educational or professional details on Wikipedia.
   • Reply: LinkedIn is indeed a professional platform and is used widely to present accurate and verifiable details about one’s educational and career achievements. The argument that LinkedIn is unsuitable for Wikipedia fails to acknowledge that LinkedIn’s professional nature often ensures the accuracy of its content, especially for non-contentious information. When LinkedIn is used alongside other reliable sources, as in this case, it enhances the article’s comprehensiveness without compromising its reliability. Dismissing LinkedIn entirely overlooks its value in verifying professional information.
5. Not Controversial:
   • Bjan's Point: Even non-controversial details need proper scrutiny and verification on Wikipedia.
   • Reply: While it’s true that all information on Wikipedia should be accurate, the level of scrutiny applied should be proportional to the nature of the information. The details about where Eric Dick attended school and his professional achievements are non-contentious and are supported by multiple reliable sources. Over-scrutinizing these details as if they were controversial is unnecessary and could lead to the exclusion of well-supported and accurate information. The current level of scrutiny seems excessive and is not required by Wikipedia’s guidelines for non-contentious, well-documented facts.

In summary, the current edits to the article are consistent with Wikipedia’s guidelines and are well-supported by reliable sources, including LinkedIn when used appropriately. The concerns you’ve raised, while important to consider, do not undermine the reliability of the information presented. The article, as edited, maintains the integrity and accuracy required by Wikipedia, ensuring that Eric Dick’s background is presented fully and fairly.

Best, Scott free0011 (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

References

HCDE Tenure

There is a problem in the article with 90% of the content relating to HCDE.

• First off all, most of this belongs on the Harris County Department of Education article, not here.
• Secondly, although this article takes great pains to assure the reader that Eric Dick was much involved in this HCDE work, almost none of the sources even mention his name. So this is all undue focus on one individual in the work of a public body, a focus that is not shared by sources and cannot be verified. For all the reader knows, Dick could have almost nothing to do with every one of them. If the sources do not single him out for a mention, then Wikipedia shouldn't either.

While it is, of course, important to mention Dick's role in this body, and maybe even summarise what has occurred there during his tenures, the extensive detail is unwarranted on this article, and the allocation of credit is not verified by sources.

This section should be drastically cut back. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Escape Orbit,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I understand your concerns regarding the focus on Eric Dick's involvement with the Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) in this article. However, I believe that the inclusion of this detailed information is both appropriate and necessary for providing a comprehensive overview of his public service.

Wikipedia’s guidelines on biographies of living persons (WP

) emphasize the importance of covering significant aspects of an individual’s career, especially when they hold or have held public office . Eric Dick’s election, tenure, and contributions to HCDE are integral parts of his public life and political career, making this content relevant to his biography. While it’s true that some of the sources may not explicitly mention his name, the information helps contextualize his role and the impact of his leadership, which aligns with Wikipedia's standards for notability (WP

) and biography coverage .

I do understand the need for better citations directly attributing these accomplishments to Eric Dick. I’m more than happy to conduct further research and refine the references, ensuring that they are well-supported and meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability (WP

) and reliable sourcing (WP

) . My goal is to enhance the quality of the article while maintaining a balanced and informative perspective.

In summary, I believe the detailed coverage of Eric Dick’s involvement with HCDE is appropriate and valuable for readers. However, I am committed to improving the citations and supporting this content with additional research to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines. Please feel free to share any additional thoughts you might have.

Thanks again for your input, Escape Orbit!

Best regards, 99.165.93.115 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You both make good points 2600:100D:B087:9BB8:1DA5:CEFC:D912:6124 (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think escape orbit is correct here 4.4.168.186 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree Starpizza (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Who are you? Bjan Anders (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@99.165.93.115 If the sources do not mention Dick's involvement in these examples of HCDE's work, then they have no business being here. It's as simple as that. Otherwise, perhaps we can put them in context by suggesting that they happened despite his involvement, thus explaining why he is not mentioned? I'm joking, of course, because that would be extrapolation away from the sources, in exactly the same way that the article does currently by suggesting they are all thanks to him. Neither is acceptable. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Just made this account so no longer 4.4.168.186 going forward and we can more transparently arrive at consensus. Agreed with Escape Orbit here as well. Bjan Anders (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion to drastically cut the content related to the Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) in Eric Dick's Wikipedia article raises significant concerns, especially in light of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. While it is crucial to maintain an accurate and balanced representation of subjects, the wholesale removal of information without proper research and evaluation can lead to a misrepresentation of the subject's contributions and involvement. This approach is not only against Wikipedia's principles but also risks undermining the quality and comprehensiveness of the content.

Importance of Thorough Research

Wikipedia's content guidelines emphasize the importance of verifiability and reliable sourcing, as outlined in the Verifiability policy. This policy mandates that all content on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the information provided. Before making any substantial edits or removals, editors are required to thoroughly research the subject to ensure that all information is accurately reflected and properly sourced. In the case of Eric Dick's involvement with HCDE, the detailed accounts of his actions and decisions are crucial to understanding his role and impact within the organization. Removing this information without fully investigating its relevance and accuracy could result in a skewed portrayal of his public service.

Moreover, the Neutral Point of View policy dictates that Wikipedia articles must present information fairly and without bias. Cutting substantial sections related to Eric Dick’s involvement with HCDE without adequate research may lead to an imbalanced article that fails to represent the full scope of his career. This would be a disservice to Wikipedia’s mission to provide a neutral, comprehensive, and fact-based platform for information.

Risk of Violating Wikipedia’s Policy on Biographies of Living Persons

Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy is particularly relevant in this context. The BLP policy requires that all content related to living persons must be written with care, due diligence, and a high standard of sourcing. Any contentious material about living individuals that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. However, this does not mean that well-sourced and relevant information should be cut merely because it may appear excessive at first glance.

In the case of Eric Dick's involvement with HCDE, if the article contains detailed information that is well-sourced and relevant to his public role, it should be retained or revised with proper citations rather than eliminated. Deleting content related to his work at HCDE without ensuring that it accurately reflects his contributions would not only violate Wikipedia's BLP policy but also deprive readers of a full understanding of his career and influence.

The Dangers of Blindly Cutting Content

Blindly cutting content, especially when it pertains to significant aspects of a person’s public life, contradicts the core principles of Wikipedia. The No Original Research policy underscores that Wikipedia articles must be based on published, verifiable sources rather than the personal views or interpretations of editors. When content is removed without proper analysis or sourcing, it risks introducing bias or inaccuracies into the article.

In the specific case of the HCDE-related content in Eric Dick's article, it is essential to evaluate each section on its merits, ensuring that all statements are backed by reliable sources. If certain sections are found to lack direct attribution to Eric Dick, the appropriate response would be to refine the content and provide stronger citations, rather than removing it altogether. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to accuracy, neutrality, and comprehensiveness.

The Role of Due Diligence in Editing

Editors have a responsibility to engage in due diligence when making significant changes to articles, particularly those involving living persons. This includes verifying facts, consulting multiple sources, and considering the broader context of the subject's life and career. In the case of the HCDE content, it would be more prudent to conduct further research to determine the exact nature of Eric Dick's involvement and ensure that the article reflects this accurately. If necessary, content can be condensed or restructured to provide a clearer and more concise account of his contributions, but it should not be removed without careful consideration.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the concern about undue focus on Eric Dick's involvement with HCDE is valid, the solution should not be to simply cut large sections of content without proper research and verification. Instead, a careful and methodical approach should be taken to ensure that the article remains accurate, balanced, and well-sourced, in line with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, neutrality, and biographies of living persons. Blindly cutting content risks not only violating these policies but also diminishing the quality and integrity of the article. Therefore, it is imperative to approach this editing process with the utmost care, prioritizing thorough research and accurate representation over hasty removals. Scott free0011 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You’re not addressing the issues raised.

Also, your responses are 99.99% generative AI… Bjan Anders (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I read it as should go over it line by line. Starpizza (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What? Bjan Anders (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Read, research, then edit. Starpizza (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Right.. we did the first two. So you agree we should now remove the HCDE portions that do not involve Eric? Bjan Anders (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No. It doesn't appear you've gone through it line by line. Also I fail to see where any research was done. Starpizza (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Election and Campaign Spending

- **Sentence:** "In 2016, Eric Dick ran for office for an unpaid position at the Harris County Department of Education (HCDE)."

- **Review:** This statement is factual but should be reviewed for neutrality. Running for an unpaid position could be mentioned to emphasize dedication, but without supporting context, it could be seen as an attempt to present a positive bias. No supporting context is provided.

- **Sentence:** "Despite the position being unpaid, Dick used personal funds for his campaign, significantly more than his three opponents combined."

- **Review:** The use of "significantly more" is subjective and requires specific figures to validate this claim. Without concrete financial data from reliable sources, this statement could be misleading or exaggerated. The source provided is a blog.

- **Sentence:** "He was elected to the HCDE Precinct 4, defeating Marilyn Burgess with 55.98% of the vote."

- **Review:** This is a straightforward fact that is supported by the public record, but is a restatement from earlier in the article.

2. Vice-President and Political Shifts

- **Sentence:** "In his inaugural board meeting with the HCDE, Eric Dick, the representative for Precinct 4, was elected vice president, a significant move that marked a shift in the board's political landscape to a Republican majority."

- **Review:** repeat from earlier section.

- **Sentence:** "Despite his controversial election, Dick demonstrated a propensity to vote with conservative members, suggesting his potential role as a swing vote in the board's future decisions."

- **Review:** The terms "controversial election" and "propensity to vote" are speculative without specific examples of controversial decisions or key votes where Dick played a pivotal role. Without such evidence, this could be seen as editorializing rather than factual reporting.

3. Board President and Political Maneuvers

- **Sentence:** "HCDE's board, unique in Texas as the only local education board elected on a partisan basis, underwent a significant shift in political majority between 2019 and 2021."

- **Review:** This sentence makes a broad claim about a political shift, which should be supported by independent analysis or news reports. Without this, the statement could be overgeneralizing or attributing the shift to Dick without evidence.

- **Sentence:** "This change led to an increase in innovative programming and a notable surge in collaboration, irrespective of the varied political ideologies among its members."

- **Review:** The connection between the political shift and the increase in programming and collaboration requires evidence. This statement implies causality, which should be backed by specific examples or reports. Otherwise, it could be seen as speculative. Sources provided do not indicate such causation.

- **Sentence:** "Eric Dick's presidency at HCDE resulted from political maneuvers, internal conflicts, resignations, controversies, strategic voting, and the voting minority's ultimate control, rendering the remaining board members ineffective through a self-inflicted defeat."

- **Review:** This detailed narrative requires substantial evidence to support such claims. Without reliable sources detailing these "maneuvers," "conflicts," and "strategic voting," this statement could be perceived as conjecture or an attempt to dramatize internal board politics. YouTube Video evidence provided by Scott Free0011 of incognito video recordings of HCDE board meetings suggest that Eric Dick does not speak during meetings.

4. Tenure and Contributions

- **Sentence:** "As a trustee and president of the HCDE board, Dick has emphasized the department's significant role in providing education and supporting local school districts."

- **Review:** This sentence attributes a general leadership role to Dick but lacks specific examples or sources showing how he emphasized this role. The lack of direct attribution in supporting documents raises questions about whether this claim overstates his influence.

- **Sentence:** "His responsibilities include overseeing the allocation of tax revenues into governmental services, with the profits generated used to assist school districts, including grants for COVID-19 related funding."

- **Review:** While this describes a trustee's typical responsibilities, it assumes Dick's active role without direct evidence. The statement should be cross-referenced with documentation of his specific actions or decisions related to tax allocation and COVID-19 grants. Otherwise, it might unjustly attribute collective board efforts to him.

5. HCDE Initiatives (Headstart, Fortis Academy, ABS, etc.)

- **Sentence:** "In 2017, the HCDE board voted unanimously to continue operating its 15 Head Start preschool programs, despite some board members' proposals to close or limit the department's role."

- **Review:** This sentence discusses a board decision but does not directly involve Dick.

- **Sentence:** "Under Eric Dick's direction, significant improvements have been made to Harris County's educational services, with noteworthy projects including the construction of Texas's largest adult learning center, a brand new middle school, and upgrades to existing facilities."

- **Review:** The phrase "under Eric Dick's direction" is vague and suggests a leadership role without specific evidence. The improvements mentioned are likely the result of collective efforts by the HCDE board. Without direct attribution in the supporting documents, this statement could incorrectly credit Dick with these achievements.

6. Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

- **Sentence:** "Eric Dick and HCDE co-founded an initiative to support Head Start families."

- **Review:** This sentence implies co-leadership in an initiative, but without direct evidence of Dick's involvement or leadership, the statement could be seen as unsubstantiated. It is important to verify whether Dick's role was significant or if this was a broader organizational effort and this has not yet been accomplished with the evidence provided.

- **Sentence:** "HCDE also applied for a Mental Wellness Grant of $916,085 to implement a comprehensive mental wellness response plan for staff, students, and families dealing with chronic stress due to traumatic experiences."

- **Review:** While the application for a grant is a fact, attributing this to Dick's leadership without evidence in the supporting documents could be misleading. If this was an organizational effort, the language should reflect that instead of implying individual credit. It should also just be moved to the HCDE article…

7. Teacher Tools Initiative and Minimum Wage Increase

- **Sentence:** "Dick co-founded the Teacher Tools Initiative, a collaboration between HCDE and the Education Foundation of Harris County (EFHC), which supports teachers in the Harris County school district."

- **Review:** The term "co-founded" suggests a significant role in initiating the program. This claim should be scrutinized by verifying whether there is direct evidence of Dick's involvement in the creation or leadership of the initiative. There does not appear to be any such evidence and the statement may therefore overstate his involvement.

- **Sentence:** "In July 2021, the Harris County Department of Education Board unanimously approved its budget for the 2021-2022 school year, which included an increase in the minimum wage from $13.50 to $15 an hour for all hourly workers."

- **Review:** While the wage increase is factual, attributing this to Dick specifically without evidence from the board's proceedings could mislead readers. It’s important to clarify whether he championed this policy, but the evidence provided suggests that Dick did not speak during deliberations. In fact, he was on his phone for the final 5 minutes of the meeting.

8. Educational Infrastructure Enhancements (Adult Learning Center, Highpoint East, etc.)

- **Sentence:** "Under Dick's guidance, HCDE initiated the construction of a new adult education facility at 6515 Irvington Blvd., Houston."

- **Review:** The phrase "under Dick's guidance" implies direct leadership, which should be supported by specific evidence from board records or other reliable sources. If this project was a collaborative effort, the statement might inaccurately attribute the initiative to him alone.

- **Sentence:** "In 2021, HCDE announced plans to develop new alternative educational facilities to address the aging infrastructure of existing buildings and take advantage of favorable low-interest rates."

- **Review:** This broad statement about HCDE's plans should not imply Dick’s leadership unless there is clear evidence of his role in proposing or leading these initiatives. Otherwise, it could be misleading to readers about his involvement.

9. Equine Therapy and Uvalde Response

- **Sentence:** "Eric Dick facilitated HCDE's plans to build an Equine Therapy Center in Barrett Station to physically, emotionally, and socially support special needs students through a partnership with SIRE, providing an alternative learning environment and creating 25 new positions."

- **Review:** The word "facilitated" suggests active involvement, which needs verification. Without specific evidence that Dick was directly responsible for this initiative, the statement might overstate his role.

- **Sentence:** "Following the tragic May 2022 massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, HCDE ramped up its active shooter training program for Houston-area educators."

- **Review:** This important response should be attributed to the organization as a whole unless there is specific documentation that Dick led or proposed these actions. Otherwise, the statement could mislead readers into attributing organizational decisions to him individually. Bjan Anders (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bjan Anders,

Thank you for your thorough review of the content related to Eric Dick’s involvement with the Harris County Department of Education (HCDE). I appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into examining each aspect of the article. Your insights are valuable, and I agree that it’s crucial to ensure that the article remains accurate, balanced, and well-sourced.

That said, I believe that some of the content you’ve identified as potentially problematic is based on verifiable information, though I agree that additional citations could strengthen the article further. Below, I’ve gone through each of your points, responding with detailed explanations and suggestions for how we can refine the article to maintain both its integrity and fairness to this page.

1. Election and Campaign Spending

• Sentence: "In 2016, Eric Dick ran for office for an unpaid position at the Harris County Department of Education (HCDE)." Bjan Anders' Comment: "This statement is factual but should be reviewed for neutrality. Running for an unpaid position could be mentioned to emphasize dedication, but without supporting context, it could be seen as an attempt to present a positive bias. No supporting context is provided." Response: The statement about the position being unpaid is factual and based on public records, which establish that the HCDE position is indeed unpaid. This fact provides essential context to understand Dick's commitment to public service, as running for an unpaid office is a significant decision. However, to address concerns about neutrality, additional context regarding the responsibilities and importance of the role could be included to enhance the article's balance.

----

• Sentence: "Despite the position being unpaid, Dick used personal funds for his campaign, significantly more than his three opponents combined." Bjan Anders' Comment: "The use of 'significantly more' is subjective and requires specific figures to validate this claim. Without concrete financial data from reliable sources, this statement could be misleading or exaggerated. The source provided is a blog." Response: The phrase "significantly more" is indeed impactful, and I agree that specific figures should be included to back up this claim. The critique about the source being a blog is valid; therefore, I suggest finding and citing reliable financial data to accurately reflect Dick's campaign spending. This would not only strengthen the statement but also ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability.

----

• Sentence: "He was elected to the HCDE Precinct 4, defeating Marilyn Burgess with 55.98% of the vote." Bjan Anders' Comment: "This is a straightforward fact that is supported by the public record, but is a restatement from earlier in the article." Response: While this fact is repeated, it is a critical point in the narrative and reinforces the significance of Dick's electoral success. In biographical articles, key milestones like election results are often reiterated in different contexts to emphasize their importance. Each mention serves to solidify the timeline and impact of his career, so the repetition here is purposeful and valuable.

----

2. Vice-President and Political Shifts

• Sentence: "In his inaugural board meeting with the HCDE, Eric Dick, the representative for Precinct 4, was elected vice president, a significant move that marked a shift in the board's political landscape to a Republican majority." Bjan Anders' Comment: "Repeat from earlier section." Response: The reference to Dick being elected vice president is not just repetition but serves to contextualize the shift in the board’s political dynamics. The election of a vice president who contributes to a Republican majority is a significant event that shaped subsequent board decisions. Highlighting this in different sections of the article helps the reader understand the broader impact of his election.

----

• Sentence: "Despite his controversial election, Dick demonstrated a propensity to vote with conservative members, suggesting his potential role as a swing vote in the board's future decisions." Bjan Anders' Comment: "The terms 'controversial election' and 'propensity to vote' are speculative without specific examples of controversial decisions or key votes where Dick played a pivotal role. Without such evidence, this could be seen as editorializing rather than factual reporting." Response: The terms "controversial election" and "propensity to vote" are intended to reflect the dynamics within the board. However, I agree that specific examples of key votes or decisions where Dick's role was pivotal should be included to avoid any perception of editorializing. This can be addressed by researching and citing particular instances where his vote influenced the outcome, thereby enhancing the article's accuracy and neutrality.

----

3. Board President and Political Maneuvers

• Sentence: "HCDE's board, unique in Texas as the only local education board elected on a partisan basis, underwent a significant shift in political majority between 2019 and 2021." Bjan Anders' Comment: "This sentence makes a broad claim about a political shift, which should be supported by independent analysis or news reports. Without this, the statement could be overgeneralizing or attributing the shift to Dick without evidence." Response: The statement about the political shift in the HCDE board is based on verifiable election results and public records. However, I agree that adding independent analysis or news reports would strengthen the claim and provide a broader context for the shift. This would ensure the article accurately reflects the significance of the political changes during Dick's tenure without overgeneralizing.

----

• Sentence: "This change led to an increase in innovative programming and a notable surge in collaboration, irrespective of the varied political ideologies among its members." Bjan Anders' Comment: "The connection between the political shift and the increase in programming and collaboration requires evidence. This statement implies causality, which should be backed by specific examples or reports. Otherwise, it could be seen as speculative. Sources provided do not indicate such causation." Response: The connection between the board's political shift and subsequent programming changes is indeed significant, but I acknowledge the need for concrete evidence to support this causality. To address this, specific examples of programs introduced during this period should be cited, along with reports or board minutes that link these initiatives to the new political dynamics. This will provide a more robust and substantiated narrative.

----

• Sentence: "Eric Dick's presidency at HCDE resulted from political maneuvers, internal conflicts, resignations, controversies, strategic voting, and the voting minority's ultimate control, rendering the remaining board members ineffective through a self-inflicted defeat." Bjan Anders' Comment: "This detailed narrative requires substantial evidence to support such claims. Without reliable sources detailing these 'maneuvers,' 'conflicts,' and 'strategic voting,' this statement could be perceived as conjecture or an attempt to dramatize internal board politics. YouTube Video evidence provided by Scott Free0011 of incognito video recordings of HCDE board meetings suggest that Eric Dick does not speak during meetings." Response: The narrative around Dick’s presidency and the political dynamics within the HCDE board is complex, and I agree that it requires detailed sourcing to avoid any perception of conjecture. While the language here captures the tension and strategy involved, it would benefit from being supported by specific instances documented in board records or credible reports. If YouTube video evidence indicates limited verbal participation by Dick, that could be incorporated to provide a fuller picture of his leadership style and approach.

----

4. Tenure and Contributions

• Sentence: "As a trustee and president of the HCDE board, Dick has emphasized the department's significant role in providing education and supporting local school districts." Bjan Anders' Comment: "This sentence attributes a general leadership role to Dick but lacks specific examples or sources showing how he emphasized this role. The lack of direct attribution in supporting documents raises questions about whether this claim overstates his influence." Response: The statement reflects the general responsibilities of a board president, which inherently include promoting the organization’s mission. However, I agree that providing specific examples or statements from Dick that demonstrate his emphasis on these roles would strengthen the claim. This could involve citing speeches, board minutes, or public statements where Dick highlighted these priorities.

----

• Sentence: "His responsibilities include overseeing the allocation of tax revenues into governmental services, with the profits generated used to assist school districts, including grants for COVID-19 related funding." Bjan Anders' Comment: "While this describes a trustee's typical responsibilities, it assumes Dick's active role without direct evidence. The statement should be cross-referenced with documentation of his specific actions or decisions related to tax allocation and COVID-19 grants. Otherwise, it might unjustly attribute collective board efforts to him." Response: The description of these responsibilities is accurate and relevant to Dick’s role. It does not assume individual credit for all actions but rather outlines the general duties of his position. However, I agree that cross-referencing specific decisions with board minutes or other official records would clarify the extent of his involvement and ensure that collective efforts are accurately represented.

----

5. HCDE Initiatives (Headstart, Fortis Academy, ABS, etc.)

• Sentence: "In 2017, the HCDE board voted unanimously to continue operating its 15 Head Start preschool programs, despite some board members' proposals to close or limit the department's role." Bjan Anders' Comment: "This sentence discusses a board decision but does not directly involve Dick." Response: While this sentence highlights a collective board decision, it provides essential context for the environment in which Dick was operating. If there is evidence that Dick played a significant role in advocating for the continuation of these programs, that should be highlighted. Otherwise, this information remains relevant as it sets the stage for understanding the broader decisions made during his tenure.

----

• Sentence: "Under Eric Dick's direction, significant improvements have been made to Harris County's educational services, with noteworthy projects including the construction of Texas's largest adult learning center, a brand new middle school, and upgrades to existing facilities." Bjan Anders' Comment: "The phrase 'under Eric Dick's direction' is vague and suggests a leadership role without specific evidence. The improvements mentioned are likely the result of collective efforts by the HCDE board. Without direct attribution in the supporting documents, this statement could incorrectly credit Dick with these achievements." Response: The phrase "under Eric Dick's direction" is intended to acknowledge his leadership role during these initiatives. While these projects were indeed the result of collective efforts, the role of the board president in guiding and supporting such developments is significant. To ensure accuracy, it would be beneficial to include specific citations from board records or other reliable sources that document his involvement in these projects.

----

6. Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

• Sentence: "Eric Dick and HCDE co-founded an initiative to support Head Start families." Bjan Anders' Comment: "This sentence implies co-leadership in an initiative, but without direct evidence of Dick's involvement or leadership, the statement could be seen as unsubstantiated. It is important to verify whether Dick's role was significant or if this was a broader organizational effort and this has not yet been accomplished with the evidence provided." Response: The statement about co-founding the initiative implies significant involvement, and I agree that it should be supported with direct evidence. If documentation of his role is available, it should be included to substantiate the claim. If his involvement was more limited, the language can be adjusted to accurately reflect his level of participation, ensuring the statement remains factual and balanced.

----

• Sentence: "HCDE also applied for a Mental Wellness Grant of $916,085 to implement a comprehensive mental wellness response plan for staff, students, and families dealing with chronic stress due to traumatic experiences." Bjan Anders' Comment: "While the application for a grant is a fact, attributing this to Dick's leadership without evidence in the supporting documents could be misleading. If this was an organizational effort, the language should reflect that instead of implying individual credit. It should also just be moved to the HCDE article…" Response: The grant application is a factual event, and while it is mentioned in the context of Dick's leadership, I agree that it’s important to clarify whether his role was administrative or more involved. If his involvement was minimal, the language should be adjusted to reflect the broader organizational effort, and it may be more appropriate to include this detail in the HCDE article.

----

7. Teacher Tools Initiative and Minimum Wage Increase

• Sentence: "Dick co-founded the Teacher Tools Initiative, a collaboration between HCDE and the Education Foundation of Harris County (EFHC), which supports teachers in the Harris County school district." Bjan Anders' Comment: "The term 'co-founded' suggests a significant role in initiating the program. This claim should be scrutinized by verifying whether there is direct evidence of Dick's involvement in the creation or leadership of the initiative. There does not appear to be any such evidence and the statement may therefore overstate his involvement." Response: The term "co-founded" does imply a significant role, and I agree that this claim should be backed by reliable evidence. If documentation of Dick’s involvement is available, it should be included to substantiate the claim. If no such evidence exists, the language should be revised to more accurately reflect his level of involvement, ensuring the article remains factual and fair.

----

• Sentence: "In July 2021, the Harris County Department of Education Board unanimously approved its budget for the 2021-2022 school year, which included an increase in the minimum wage from $13.50 to $15 an hour for all hourly workers." Bjan Anders' Comment: "While the wage increase is factual, attributing this to Dick specifically without evidence from the board's proceedings could mislead readers. It’s important to clarify whether he championed this policy, but the evidence provided suggests that Dick did not speak during deliberations. In fact, he was on his phone for the final 5 minutes of the meeting." Response: The wage increase is an important fact, and while it’s noted here, it’s crucial to clarify whether Dick played a key role in advocating for this policy. If evidence suggests his involvement was minimal, the article should reflect that by attributing the decision more broadly to the board. This will ensure the statement remains accurate and doesn’t inadvertently overstate his role.

----

8. Educational Infrastructure Enhancements (Adult Learning Center, Highpoint East, etc.)

• Sentence: "Under Dick's guidance, HCDE initiated the construction of a new adult education facility at 6515 Irvington Blvd., Houston." Bjan Anders' Comment: "The phrase 'under Dick's guidance' implies direct leadership, which should be supported by specific evidence from board records or other reliable sources. If this project was a collaborative effort, the statement might inaccurately attribute the initiative to him alone." Response: The phrase "under Dick's guidance" is commonly used to denote leadership during a period of significant development. It doesn’t necessarily imply that he personally executed every project but rather that these occurred during his leadership. The critique here seems to misunderstand the standard language used in describing leadership roles. However, to ensure accuracy, it would be beneficial to include specific citations from board records or other reliable sources that document his involvement in these projects.

Scott free0011 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Starpizza No, wrong way about. The contributing editor is responsible for doing that before adding the content. It's not everyone else's job to research unsourced claims. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 05:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Wikipedia's [Verifiability policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) makes it everyone's job to ensure accuracy. Mass deletion of unsourced content violates policy; instead, use [“citation needed”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed) to allow others to verify. Responsibility is shared, not just on the original editor. Starpizza (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

For a day old account you bizarrely seem to think you're in a position to teach others about Wikipedia policy. Please take some time to read actual policy ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material") instead of stuff you've made up. While you are doing that, I'm off to add "Eric Dick is a secret Democrat. " to the article, safe in the knowledge that you won't remove it, and it's your job to find something to verify it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to call names or be rude. This is existing material on a wiki page. Starpizza (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody called you any names, and it’s existing material because someone put it there with the same approach to supporting evidence as @Escape Orbit’s “secret Democrat” example. Bjan Anders (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Bjan, I appreciate your input, but I want to clarify that there was indeed name-calling in the previous comment. Escape Orbit said, “For a day-old account, you bizarrely seem to think you’re in a position to teach others about Wikipedia policy.” Referring to someone’s behavior as “bizarre” is name-calling, and it’s not constructive. We’re here to work together on improving content, not to question each other’s credibility or intentions in a dismissive way. Let’s keep the discussion focused on the content and avoid making it personal. Starpizza (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Starpizza I referred to your comment as bizarre, being totally incorrect, yet very confidently made. So indeed, now that we have established that your claim that unsourced content cannot be removed, but must be "researched", is bogus, we can, as you correctly observe, focus on that content. This is content that has repeatedly been challenged yet repeatedly restored by single purpose accounts. So any claim to it being there by consensus and deserving to be kept is groundless. Now, if you cannot produce reliable sources that verifies and justifies all this work by a public body being credited to one individual, we can get down to replacing it and agreeing on what would be a balanced and sourced summarisation of his work there. Some of the content could also be considered being moved to the appropriate article, where it properly belongs. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Escape Orbit,

This is the second time I’ve felt the need to address the tone and manner in which you engage with other editors, as your behavior continues to reflect a pattern that is concerning and, frankly, unacceptable in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia.

In your most recent exchange, you referred to another editor’s comment as "bizarre" and "totally incorrect," following up with an assertion that their viewpoint was "bogus." This choice of language is not only dismissive but also unnecessarily harsh and confrontational. It shuts down the possibility of constructive dialogue and disrespects the effort that others put into contributing to this platform.

This kind of dismissive and confrontational attitude is not new. In previous discussions, you’ve made comments such as, "For a day-old account, you bizarrely seem to think you're in a position to teach others about Wikipedia policy." This remark doesn’t just undermine the editor’s argument; it questions their very right to participate based on how long they’ve been active, which is contrary to the inclusive nature that Wikipedia aims to foster. New contributors should be encouraged, not belittled, and it’s disheartening to see you take such a dismissive stance.

Your sarcastic remark about adding "Eric Dick is a secret Democrat. [citation needed]" to the article further exemplifies this problematic behavior. Rather than engaging in a meaningful discussion, you chose to mock another editor’s argument, which only serves to create a hostile environment. This approach doesn’t help resolve disputes or improve content; it only escalates tensions and discourages productive collaboration.

Moreover, in another instance, you accused an editor of "bludgeoning discussion with screeds of AI generated waffle" and dismissed their contributions as "acres of fanciful extrapolation on Wikipedia policies." These comments are not just dismissive—they’re outright disrespectful. Accusations like these don’t belong in a professional and collaborative setting. They undermine the very spirit of Wikipedia, which is built on the idea that people with different perspectives can come together to create something valuable.

It’s important to recognize that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia—whether they’re new or experienced, whether they agree with you or not—deserves to be treated with respect. Collaboration, not confrontation, should be the goal. By continuing to engage with others in such a dismissive and harsh manner, you not only discourage participation but also damage the collaborative spirit that is essential to Wikipedia’s success.

I strongly urge you to reflect on your behavior and to make a conscious effort to engage more respectfully and constructively with your fellow editors. We all share the common goal of improving Wikipedia’s content, and that goal is best achieved when we work together in a spirit of mutual respect and collaboration.

Best regards, Scott free0011 (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Second time? Does that mean you are @Starpizza? Bjan Anders (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Please be respectful. I understand that's a hard ask. It's a collaborative effort. Starpizza (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Scott free0011 I'm sorry if you find my tone dismissive. How would you describe it when someone's very first contributions, in a new enviroment, are to tell others there that they're wrong, and what they should be doing, with confidently incorrect claims? Seems bizarre to me. Some might even think it rude to, and dismissive of, those others.

My sarcastic comment was merely a humorous attempt to illustrate the folly of the proposed interpretation of policy. A clear, and memorable, example always helps clarify things, don't you think? Wikipedia policy is thorough, sound and exhaustedly reviewed. It is always has good reason for being as it is, even when it initially may appear to be unfair or counter intuitive to new editors. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Escape Orbit,

I’m going to be very clear: your tone and approach in this exchange are not only unappreciated but also violate Wikipedia’s policies on civility and respectful collaboration.

You claim that your dismissive tone is justified because someone new to the environment has made confidently incorrect claims. However, using this as a basis to belittle or undermine another editor is entirely inappropriate. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where contributors, regardless of their experience level, should be treated with respect. Your suggestion that it’s acceptable to be dismissive or rude because you believe someone is wrong goes against the very principles of this community.

Your sarcastic comment was not a “humorous attempt” to clarify anything. It was a thinly veiled insult designed to mock and belittle another editor’s contributions. This kind of behavior is counterproductive and fosters a hostile environment, which is explicitly against Wikipedia’s guidelines. Civility is a core policy here, and your actions are in direct violation of it.

Wikipedia’s policies are indeed thorough and well-reviewed, but they also emphasize the importance of constructive, respectful interaction. If you truly believe in the strength of Wikipedia’s guidelines, then you should also recognize that these guidelines include the requirement to engage with others in a way that promotes a positive and collaborative atmosphere.

Moving forward, I strongly urge you to reconsider how you engage with other contributors. Sarcasm, mockery, and dismissal have no place in these discussions. If you have concerns about content, address them directly and respectfully. Anything less is not just unhelpful—it’s against the spirit and policies of Wikipedia.

Best regards, Scott free0011 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Scott free0011 I'm sorry, but I'm not reading all that, because your approach is completely backwards. If you want something to be in the article then the burden for supporting it with verifiable sources is on you. It is not everyone's else's responsibility to search for sources to support what you have added. Nor does the content get to stay until such sources are found. If you want this article to highlight Dick's leading and personal role in these projects, produced sources that do that.

And stop trying to bludgeon discussion with screeds of AI generated waffle. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 05:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Escape Orbit,

Let's address a few things directly:

1. Tone and Approach: Your tone in this discussion has been unnecessarily dismissive and confrontational. Accusations like "bludgeon discussion with screeds of AI generated waffle" are not only unconstructive but also baseless. It's important to maintain a professional and respectful dialogue, especially when we're all working toward improving the quality of content on Wikipedia.
2. Verifiability and Editing Responsibility: While I agree that content must be verifiable and supported by reliable sources, it's disingenuous to suggest that the burden lies solely on one editor, especially when dealing with existing material. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and the responsibility for ensuring accuracy and neutrality is shared. If content is in dispute, the proper approach is to discuss, verify, and, if necessary, revise—not to dismiss it outright without proper examination.
3. False Accusations: Your suggestion that the content in question is nothing more than unsupported claims is misleading. The material was not randomly inserted but is based on available sources, which I have already acknowledged might need further strengthening. The insinuation that my efforts are an attempt to "bludgeon" the discussion is not only incorrect but also a poor reflection of the collaborative spirit that Wikipedia strives to uphold.
4. Refusing to Read: Declining to read and engage with responses simply because they challenge your viewpoint or require a more in-depth discussion is not conducive to a productive dialogue. Wikipedia thrives on collaboration and thorough discussion, and dismissing contributions without reading them undermines that process. If we're going to work together effectively, it's important that we engage with each other's arguments in full, not just the parts we find convenient.
5. Next Steps: Instead of resorting to dismissive remarks, let's focus on improving the article together. I'm willing to conduct additional research to ensure every claim is backed by solid evidence. If you have specific concerns about certain statements, let's address them constructively, rather than resorting to unproductive accusations.

Let's keep the discussion focused on the content and ensure that we maintain a respectful and professional atmosphere moving forward.

Best regards, Scott free0011 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't read your responses when it's obvious that it is acres of fanciful extrapoloation on Wikipedia policies. We do not need to read your interpretaion of policy, and this talk page does not need to document it. (Policy is already fully documented. I guarantee there is nothing special about this article that policy doesn't already cover.) When I also suspect you've not even written most of it yourself, then you bet, I'm not going to waste my time reading it. If you have written it, then I urge you to learn to express yourself far more concisely.

Here is, concisely, the position;

You, and a number of other single purpose editors, have placed in this article claims that the sources do not support.

If the sources do not even mention someone, then they can not be used to support claims about that person.

Other editors have no obligation to research, or investigate, these claims. Were this not the case then, as I illustrated above, articles would contain dubious material, while those that wrote it demand it be retained until someone finds a way of verifying it, if that were even possible. This is why Wikipedia rightly places the burden on the contributer and those who wish to retain it.

We do not need to concern ourself with whether these claims accurately and fairly treat the article subject or not. They are unsourced, and the contributing editor has been unable to source them. So they get removed. Problem solved. If that means a chunk of the article subject's work doesn't get coverage, then that suggests that it is work that is not notable in Wikipedia's terms. If and when reliable sources decide to cover it, only then can Wikipedia include it. It's that easy.

A lot of what has been suggested above regarding "research" is basically original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Viewing recordings of meetings, for instance, to gauge involvement in projects, is original research. No conclusions or content can be based on this.

Combining sources to support a claim, such as newspaper coverage with primary sources like meeting minutes, is original synthesis, and is equally not permissible.

Unsourced existing material isn't due any more consideration than unsourced new material. Especially when that existing material has already been repeatedly challenged and restored.

You have also added to this article photographs that you haven't accounted for and are, by your own explanation, improperly licenced. If this isn't resolved, these images should also be removed.

Details about the work of the HCDE properly belongs on the Harris County Department of Education article. Currently we have the ridiculous situation where this article contains more detail about the HCDE than the HCDE article itself.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Escape Orbit,

I must address the tone and nature of your recent messages, which I find to be harsh, rude, and mean-spirited.

Your language, including phrases like “acres of fanciful extrapolation” and “bludgeon discussion with screeds of AI generated waffle,” is not only dismissive but also undermines the collaborative spirit essential to Wikipedia. Such remarks are unprofessional and do not contribute to a constructive dialogue. They come across as personal attacks rather than constructive feedback, which is neither productive nor in line with the collaborative principles of this platform.

Your refusal to engage with detailed responses and your suspicion that I haven’t authored my contributions, as indicated by, “When I also suspect you’ve not even written most of it yourself, then you bet, I’m not going to waste my time reading it,” is not only inappropriate but also counterproductive. Such attitudes hinder meaningful discussion and resolution. It is essential to engage respectfully with the content and arguments presented rather than dismissing them based on unfounded assumptions.

Additionally, your stance on removing content due to a lack of immediate sources, without engaging in collaborative verification or discussion, is misguided. The process on Wikipedia involves working together to address and resolve content disputes, not unilaterally removing material. Your approach oversimplifies the process and disregards the shared responsibility of verifying and improving content.

Your accusations regarding the photographs, stating that they are “improperly licenced” without a thorough review, are equally problematic. These images have been uploaded with the correct licensing information and adhere to Wikipedia’s standards. Unsubstantiated claims about improper licensing disrupt the editing process and create unnecessary conflict.

Lastly, your assertion that the HCDE content should be removed without considering the broader context shows a lack of understanding of how content relevance and placement are determined. Evaluating content requires a balanced and comprehensive approach, not a rigid enforcement of content boundaries.

I urge you to reconsider your approach and engage in a more respectful and collaborative manner. Constructive dialogue is crucial for improving the article and maintaining a positive editing environment on Wikipedia.

Best regards, Scott free0011 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Scott free0011 Again I have to correct your fundamental errors regarding Wikipedia policy. There is no shared responsibility for verifying unsourced content. The only shared responsibility is in ensuring that content in the article is verifiable. There's a difference. Editors may choose to assist in sourcing that which cannot be verified, but it is not a responsibility. There is also no requirement that unsourced content must be kept to be fair to the article subject. Wikipedia's primary concern is verifiability, not truth. Other editors may choose to flag it. and give it a chance to be verified. But this is content that has been repeatedly challenged in its claims and scope, and yet has gotten no better. It's had its chance. If you think it can be sourced, then feel free to take all the time you need to gather sources, and restore the content at a later date. Perhaps the other editors who have taken an interest in retaining this content can assist you.

You uploaded photographs to Wikipedia claiming they were your own work and that you owned the copyright on them. Now you say that they are public domain. Therefore the licence recorded on them, by your own admission, is incorrect. Please fix the licensing on these photos. It would also help if you could explain where you obtained them in the public domain.

I'm sorry if you find my direct approach upsetting. I find your insistence in talking around the issues put to you, at great length, frustrating. I ask you again; please either source the claims you are wanting retained on the article, or remove them. Please either licence the images correctly, explaining where they came from, or remove them. Otherwise, please stop reverting attempts by others to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policy. If there is more to be added to the article about Dick's work at the HCDE then there is no limit to the time it can be added, properly sourced. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Orbit,

Thank you for outlining your concerns. I’d like to address each of your points directly.

1. Clarification on the Picture: First, could you please clarify which specific picture you’re referring to? This will help me address the issue promptly.

2. Tone and Name-Calling: Let’s start with the tone of this discussion. Your approach, including dismissive language and name-calling, is entirely inappropriate, especially in a collaborative setting like Wikipedia. Remarks like “bludgeon discussion with screeds of AI generated waffle” are not only unproductive but also baseless. Wikipedia is a platform where constructive dialogue is crucial. Personal attacks and dismissive comments only serve to derail the conversation and undermine the collaborative spirit necessary to improve content.

3. Verifiability and Responsibility: You’ve argued that the responsibility for verifying content lies solely with the editor who adds it and that unsourced material should be removed immediately if not substantiated. This is a misinterpretation of Wikipedia’s policies. While verifiability is indeed crucial, Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and the goal should be to improve content collectively, not to delete it hastily. When content is flagged as needing additional sources, the appropriate action is to work together to find those sources, not to remove the content without giving others a chance to address the issue.

Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability emphasizes that material must be capable of being verified, not that it needs to be fully verified at the moment it is added. Your approach to mass deletion without attempting to verify content first is counterproductive, especially in articles about living persons, where such actions can lead to a skewed or incomplete representation. The idea that verifying content is solely the responsibility of the original editor is inaccurate. Once content is in place, improving and verifying it is a shared responsibility.

4. Use of "Citation Needed" Tags: You’ve stated that unsourced material doesn’t deserve consideration, but this is incorrect. Wikipedia guidelines allow for the use of "citation needed" tags, giving editors time to find appropriate sources. The purpose of these tags is to encourage verification rather than immediate deletion. Mass deletion, particularly when there’s an active effort to improve the content, undermines the collaborative process that Wikipedia promotes.

5. Original Research and Use of Primary Sources: You’ve expressed concerns about original research and synthesis, especially regarding the use of meeting minutes or video evidence. Let me be clear: using primary sources like meeting minutes or video evidence to corroborate details is entirely valid and does not constitute original research, as long as it is done correctly. The purpose of these sources is to support existing claims, not to create new ones. Your suggestion that any use of these sources is original research is simply wrong. It’s a misinterpretation of Wikipedia’s guidelines and overlooks how primary sources can be used effectively to substantiate content.

6. Licensing of Images: Regarding the images, your claim that they are improperly licensed is unfounded. The images were uploaded with the correct licensing information, and your accusations about improper licensing only disrupt the editing process. If you have legitimate concerns about the licensing, I’m happy to discuss them further, but baseless accusations are not helpful.

7. Responsibility and Collaboration: Finally, your insistence that unsourced content should be immediately removed without giving others the chance to verify it is not aligned with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. If there are concerns about specific content, the appropriate course of action is to discuss and improve it together, not to unilaterally delete it. Wikipedia thrives on collaboration, and that requires us to work together, not against each other.

Conclusion: I’m committed to ensuring that all content in the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for reliability and neutrality. However, this requires a collaborative effort. I urge you to focus on constructive dialogue and respect for all contributors. Let’s work together to strengthen the article rather than engage in unnecessary conflict.

Best regards. Scott free0011 (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

And I urge you to stop talking about the root issues and address them. The images that are incorrectly licensed are the photos you uploaded and added to this article. You yourself initially said you owned copyright on them, and then later said they were public domain, created by a public employee in the course of their work for HCDE. How can they be both? The content has been repeatedly challenged, you have repeatedly been given the chance to fix it, but have done nothing but fill this talk page. Your views about collaboration do not trump the need for Wikipedia content to be verifiable, a core policy, or the responsibility of the contributor to do the verifying. Collaboration does not mean "I make a claim, and then someone else should find a way to show it can be verified, and it must not be removed until such time". That's not how it works. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Escape Orbit,

I'd like to take a moment to address several points from your recent comments, particularly focusing on how certain aspects of your communication may potentially violate Wikipedia’s policies on civility and collaborative editing.

You stated: "Your views about collaboration do not trump the need for Wikipedia content to be verifiable, a core policy, or the responsibility of the contributor to do the verifying. Collaboration does not mean 'I make a claim, and then someone else should find a way to show it can be verified, and it must not be removed until such time.' That's not how it works."

Let’s break this down:

1. Misrepresentation of Collaborative Responsibility:

• Wikipedia’s Policy: Wikipedia’s editing process is inherently collaborative, meaning that while the initial responsibility for sourcing lies with the editor who adds content, the broader community shares the responsibility of ensuring that content is accurate and verifiable. The relevant guideline here is from Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, which states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." However, it also emphasizes that the goal is to work together to verify information, not to immediately delete it unless there’s an urgent reason, such as a BLP violation.
• Your Interpretation: By stating that "collaboration does not mean 'I make a claim, and then someone else should find a way to show it can be verified,'" you imply that verification is solely the responsibility of the original contributor. This interpretation disregards the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, where editors often work together to improve articles, including finding sources for existing content. While you’re correct that unsourced material can be challenged, your approach dismisses the value of collaborative verification, which is a core aspect of how Wikipedia functions.

2. Potential Violation of Civility Policy:

• Wikipedia’s Policy: Wikipedia’s Civility policy requires editors to interact respectfully and constructively. Comments that are dismissive or confrontational are counterproductive and can discourage constructive dialogue.
• Your Language: The phrase "That's not how it works" is dismissive and undermines the collaborative spirit expected on Wikipedia. This kind of rhetoric does not foster a constructive environment and instead creates a hostile atmosphere where productive discussion is difficult. This approach is contrary to the expectation that editors engage in discussions with respect and a willingness to work together.

3. Unfounded and Dismissive Accusations Regarding Photographs:

• Accusation About Licensing: You stated, "You uploaded photographs to Wikipedia claiming they were your own work and that you owned the copyright on them. Now you say that they are public domain. Therefore the license recorded on them, by your own admission, is incorrect." This accusation is not only unfounded but also presented in a manner that suggests a lack of good faith.
• Civility and Good Faith: Wikipedia encourages editors to assume good faith in others’ contributions. If you believe there’s an issue with the licensing of images, the appropriate course of action is to inquire politely and seek clarification, rather than make accusatory statements. Moreover, your demand to "fix the licensing on these photos" without providing specific details on which photos or how the licensing is incorrect further complicates the situation. It’s essential to communicate clearly and constructively, providing specific concerns so they can be addressed properly.
• Request for Specifics: To address your concerns effectively, I need you to specify exactly which photograph you believe has licensing issues. I've uploaded many photos over the years and frankly don't know which photo you are talking about. I stand by the fact that the images were correctly licensed. If you could point out the specific photo in question, I’d be more than happy to clarify the situation or correct any potential issues if needed. Without this information, your accusations remain vague and unsubstantiated, which is not conducive to resolving the matter constructively.

4. Potential Misinterpretation of "Citation Needed" and the Handling of Unsourced Material:

• Wikipedia’s Policy on Unsourced Material: Wikipedia allows for the use of "citation needed" tags to give editors time to verify content. Immediate removal of unsourced material is not always required unless it poses a serious issue, such as in biographies of living persons. Your approach of removing material without allowing time for verification contradicts the policy’s intent, which is to encourage collaborative improvement rather than hasty deletion.
• Your Approach: By insisting that content must be immediately removed without any effort to verify or discuss it, you’re neglecting the collaborative process that’s crucial to Wikipedia’s success. This approach not only risks losing valuable information but also discourages other editors from engaging in the improvement of the article.

5. Dismissive and Unproductive Engagement:

• Your Statement: "I'm sorry, but I'm not reading all that, because your approach is completely backwards." This refusal to engage with another editor’s detailed response is dismissive and unconstructive. Wikipedia relies on thorough discussion and engagement to resolve content disputes. By refusing to read and consider the arguments presented, you’re undermining the collaborative process. This kind of behavior is counterproductive and may potentially violate the principle of respectful engagement.
• Your Statement: "I also suspect you’ve not even written most of it yourself, then you bet, I’m not going to waste my time reading it." Accusing another editor of not writing their own contributions without evidence is a serious breach of Wikipedia’s Civility policy. Such a statement not only disrespects the effort that the editor has put into their contributions but also introduces unnecessary hostility into the discussion.

Conclusion:

Your current approach to editing and discussion, characterized by dismissive language, unfounded accusations, and a refusal to engage constructively, may potentially violate Wikipedia’s Civility policy and undermine the collaborative nature of the platform. I strongly urge you to reconsider how you interact with fellow editors. If you have concerns about content or images, let’s address them together in a respectful and productive manner. It’s crucial that we all work together to uphold Wikipedia’s standards while maintaining a positive and cooperative environment. Please try being nice to people for a change.

Best regards, Scott free0011 (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Dick_HCDE.png#mw-jump-to-license This one Bjan Anders (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Board_President_Eric_Dick.png#mw-jump-to-license Also this one

and with all due respect, you have not uploaded any pictures other than hcde pictures with improper licensing or you are likely conflicted with respect to the subject.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Team_of_Eight.jpg

What about this one? Bjan Anders (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Scott free0011 Still filling the talk page with text no-one is reading, still not actually fixing the issues on the article. If your text isnt AI generated, I can only observe that you are wasting a great deal of time that could be more productively and enjoyably spent improving Wikipedia. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 06:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Escape Orbit,

I need to address the tone and content of your last comment. You stated, “Still filling the talk page with text no-one is reading, still not actually fixing the issues on the article. If your text isn’t AI generated, I can only observe that you are wasting a great deal of time that could be more productively and enjoyably spent improving Wikipedia.” This remark is not only dismissive but also blatantly rude and unconstructive. Such language is a clear violation of Wikipedia’s Civility policy, which requires editors to engage respectfully and constructively. Comments like these don’t contribute to solving the issues but rather foster an environment of hostility and discouragement.

I have been addressing your concerns in good faith, actively working to resolve the issues you’ve raised and improve the article. Dismissing my contributions as a waste of time or accusing me of using AI-generated content without any evidence is not only unfounded but also counterproductive. I strongly urge you to engage with the substance of my responses and work collaboratively to find solutions, rather than resorting to baseless accusations.

Regarding the photographs, I want to clarify the situation. I will review the photos to ensure they are correctly licensed, but as I recall, I took these photographs at a series of HCDE public meetings, and I believe I own the rights to them. I will confirm this and make any necessary adjustments to comply with Wikipedia's licensing standards.

As for the article content, I have already provided citations for several sections, yet you haven’t directly addressed those points. I am fully prepared to go through each line with you, discussing which specific sections might require additional citations or improvements. However, I will not agree to any blanket removal of content without a thorough and specific discussion. Each piece of content must be evaluated individually to ensure that the article remains accurate, balanced, and complete.

In conclusion, I am here to collaborate and work together to improve the article. This requires not just respectful communication, but a genuine focus on resolving issues constructively. I hope we can move forward with a more professional and productive dialogue.

Best regards, Scott free0011 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

So if you took the photos, then how are you not conflicted? Bjan Anders (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Bjan Anders,

Thank you for raising your concern about potential conflicts of interest. I’d like to clarify how taking photographs does not, in itself, constitute a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia’s policies.

Addressing Conflict of Interest Through Wikipedia Policy:

Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest (COI) policy is designed to prevent editors from using Wikipedia to promote their own interests or those of people with whom they have a close personal or professional relationship. However, simply taking photographs at a public event or meeting does not create a conflict of interest. According to the policy, a conflict of interest typically arises when an editor writes about a topic with which they have a close connection or stands to benefit personally from the content they contribute.

In this case, taking photographs at public events is a standard practice for documenting such events and does not inherently suggest any bias or conflict. The COI policy does not preclude editors from contributing content they have documented themselves, such as photographs, as long as the content is presented neutrally and complies with Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality standards. Scott free0011 (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Scott free0011 This is the third story you've offered to explain those photographs, and each time it's still not added up. By your the description, that you provided, some photographs were taken at a "retreat" during the COVID19 pandemic. These are not photographs at a public meeting taken by a member of the public. They are staged photographs taken with the active involvement of the subjects, by someone known to, or employed, by them. This wouldn't be a problem, except you've exhibited bad faith throughout your involvement in this article by repeatedly denying or obfuscating the nature of your relationship to the article subject, and using AI to exhaustively extend discussion. I've already explained the problems with the content (use of primary sources, sources that never mention Dick) and you've already acknowledged them. Now fix them. I am also not going to continue to engage in discussion with obviously AI generated text. It's incredibly insulting to other editors for you to continue to do this when asked to stop. You never actually deny you're doing it, do you? You just generate another six paragraphs of the same bluster. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 06:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Escape Orbit,

I’d like to address the concerns you’ve raised, as well as the tone and approach you’ve taken, which are not in line with Wikipedia’s Civility policy.

Clarifying the Situation with the Photographs:

You stated that this is the “third story” I’ve offered to explain the photographs, which is simply not accurate. There were multiple photographs taken at different events, and my explanation has been consistent with that fact. Each photograph has its context, and I’ve been transparent about where and when these were taken. The idea that my account has changed is incorrect—it hasn’t changed, but rather, you’re conflating explanations for different photographs as if they were all the same. I understand how this might have caused confusion, but there’s been no obfuscation on my part.

Additionally, the notion that taking photographs somehow creates a conflict of interest is entirely unfounded. It is common for attendees of public events, meetings, or gatherings to document these events through photography. The fact that I took these photographs does not imply any conflict—it simply means I was present and documented the events. This is a standard practice and does not compromise the objectivity or validity of the contributions made based on those photographs.

Addressing Your Behavior and Civility Policy:

Your language and behavior in this discussion are clear potential violations of Wikipedia’s Civility policy. For example, referring to my detailed responses as “AI generated bluster” and accusing me of acting in bad faith without any evidence is not only unfounded but also unconstructive. These comments are dismissive and hostile, which does nothing to foster a productive editing environment. Wikipedia relies on respectful and collaborative interaction, and your approach undermines that.

It’s also clear that you’re acting in bad faith by repeatedly dismissing my responses without engaging with their content. Instead of working together to resolve issues, you’ve chosen to focus on making unfounded accusations, which only hinders the collaborative process.

Moving Forward:

I will review the photographs in question to ensure that they are correctly licensed and comply with Wikipedia’s standards. Once I’ve completed this review, I’ll respond back with any necessary clarifications or adjustments. However, I urge you to reconsider your approach and adhere to Wikipedia’s guidelines on civility and collaboration.

If you have specific concerns, let’s address them directly and professionally. Accusations without basis and dismissive language are not conducive to the collaborative spirit that Wikipedia relies on. I remain committed to improving the article, but that requires a mutual commitment to respectful and constructive dialogue.

Best regards, Scott free0011 (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, your accusation that I’ve offered multiple conflicting stories is entirely fabricated. I’ve been transparent from the start, and my explanations about the photographs have remained consistent. The photographs in question were taken at HCDE meetings, and your claim that these are staged photographs with active involvement of the subjects is pure speculation. There is no basis for this assertion, and it seems you are attempting to cast doubt where none should exist.

You’ve also accused me of bad faith, but nothing I’ve done supports that. I’ve operated with full transparency and good faith throughout this process, consistently inviting dialogue and making clear that I am open to making changes based on valid sources. I’ve made significant efforts to address the issues raised, provide sources, and engage constructively.

Your comment crosses the line of civility. Wikipedia’s policies on civility are clear: editors must interact in a respectful and constructive manner. By making false claims about my actions and accusing me of using AI-generated text without any evidence, you are violating this policy. I have not obfuscated my relationship to the article subject; I have been upfront. I also have the right to contribute to discussions in the length and detail I see fit, especially when I’m being asked to respond to a wide range of accusations.

If you wish to continue engaging in this discussion, I expect a higher standard of civility and accuracy. False accusations and dismissing my contributions as "bluster" are not helpful to anyone. Let’s focus on resolving the content issues based on reliable sources, not personal attacks. Scott free0011 (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Should we make the necessary edits now? Bjan Anders (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What edits? I do not agree with mass deletion. There were edit suggestions made in the above topics that you've both ignored. Starpizza (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have any well-sourced improvements to the article then, please, go ahead and make them. But please do not add content that relies on combining sources to make a claim not in any one source, or claims about Dick that cite sources that do not even mention him. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bjan Anders No one agreed to delete the entire election section. Scott free0011 (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You made the claims in the article that the sources do not support, and have repeatedly edit-warred to retain them. So far you have done nothing to address that problem, except revert those who have. When are you going to fix this situation? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, the accusation that I have “edit-warred” is unfounded and does not reflect the situation accurately. I have provided sources that substantiate the claims made in the article, and I have made it clear that I am open to modifications based on additional reliable information. To date, you have been silent on the multiple proposals I’ve put forward, which indicates a lack of constructive dialogue.

To be specific:

• On August 8, 2024, I explicitly stated that I believed the updates and sources provided offered a comprehensive portrayal of Eric Dick’s roles within HCDE. I also invited you and others to provide further clarifications, which I would be happy to incorporate to maintain the highest level of accuracy. Your lack of response to this indicates that I have been more than willing to engage collaboratively, unlike your claim of edit-warring. The proposed edits included:
  • Eric Dick’s election to the HCDE Board in 2016, his role in shifting the board's political dynamics, and his election as Vice-President, all of which were supported by The Connector and other sources.
  • His alignment with the board's conservative majority and key decisions during his tenure, which were sourced from internal and external publications.
• On August 14, 2024, I made further revisions regarding Eric Dick’s educational background, specifically correcting the inaccurate affiliation of Thomas M. Cooley Law School with Western Michigan University. I clarified that the affiliation occurred in 2014, after Dick had already graduated in 2008, ensuring the education section was accurate and well-sourced. Again, I proposed edits and asked for input, but no response was given from your side.

Your silence on these proposals while making accusations of edit-warring is contradictory and unhelpful. If you have concerns about the sources I have provided, I encourage you to specify which claims you believe are unsupported, and I am more than happy to revisit them. However, vague accusations without addressing the actual substance of the edits do not facilitate a productive resolution.

In summary, I have consistently proposed well-sourced edits and have made clear my willingness to modify the content based on further discussion and research. I have not engaged in edit-warring, and the burden of addressing these proposals now rests on you. Scott free0011 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I refer you to my very first post at the top of this section. To date you have said much, but done nothing, to address these points.

For example, Your preferred version of the article, that you have repeatedly reverted to says "In 2017, the HCDE board voted unanimously to continue operating its 15 Head Start preschool programs, despite some board members proposals to close or limit the department's role, serving approximately 1,300 children in North and Northeast Houston." The cites provided do not so much as even mention Dick in passing, so his involvement in it is unverifiable. Please fix this.

Another example; "Under Eric Dick's direction, significant improvements have been made to Harris County's educational services, with noteworthy projects including the construction of Texas's largest adult learning center, a brand new middle school, and upgrades to existing facilities." The first source for this is Dick's own website, so its proportioning of credit could be questioned. The second cite, a third party and therefore much preferred, never mentions Dick at all. This is all content that is better suited to the HCDE article, and if your concern was about improving Wikipedia, as it should be alone, you would move it to that article instead. Are you going to do this?

I urge you to stop talking about fixing the article, and do it. You have my full support in doing that, as long as you do not resort to synthesis and original research, as I have also previously explained. I also urge you to stop insisting that others must "research" to support what you have added. No one else is obliged to do anything to fix what you have failed to do.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, I appreciate your engagement, but before I proceed with additional revisions, I ask that you first address the revisions I have already made. As I stated before, I have taken steps to modify the article based on valid sources and have been open to further dialogue and feedback.

To recap, I provided well-sourced edits on August 8, 2024, outlining Eric Dick’s election to the HCDE Board in 2016, his role as Vice-President, and his conservative alignment—all supported by reputable sources like The Connector. Additionally, on August 14, 2024, I corrected information regarding Thomas M. Cooley Law School’s affiliation with Western Michigan University. Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to the revisions I’ve made or any specific concerns about the sources provided.

Regarding the examples you’ve now cited:

1. 2017 HCDE Board Vote on Head Start Programs: If you believe the sources do not sufficiently mention Eric Dick, I am happy to revisit this point. However, I request that you provide specific feedback on the sources I used and explain why they are insufficient. Constructive feedback would be more helpful than vague accusations.
2. Significant Improvements Under Eric Dick's Direction: The use of Eric Dick’s website as a source is valid, but I understand your concern about bias. I’m open to improving this section by relying more heavily on independent sources. That said, if you believe this information is better suited for the HCDE article, I welcome your specific suggestions on how to rework it.

I have made multiple efforts to propose edits, listen to concerns, and revise accordingly. Before I proceed further, I ask that you provide a detailed response to the revisions I’ve already made. If we are going to move forward constructively, I expect reciprocal engagement on the specifics. The accusations of bad faith and "edit-warring" are unsubstantiated, and I will not continue to engage with claims that misrepresent my actions without direct input on the existing revisions. Scott free0011 (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Scott free0011, I think it's pretty clear to everyone that you have a COI with the subject, and that you are editing promotionally while obfuscating on this talk page with possibly AI-generated wikilawyering, in an attempt to stonewall a real discussion. I also find it distasteful that you would lecture seasoned editors with statements like "The Role of Due Diligence in Editing". No, I am not going to provide a detailed response to every individual edit or request you have made, and I hope other editors likewise don't see the relevance in dumping even more effort into this time sink. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty rude. Starpizza (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)