Talk:Margaret Rodgers (deaconess)

Connected editor

It is clear from this edit that the subject of this article was a friend of Amandajm, the main editor of the article. This is in direct contravention of WP:COI, particularly this sentence: "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends.". Mary IV (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Mary IV: If you reread WP:COI, you see, in boldface, when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. No outside interests are being advanced by this article. I do have concerns regarding WP:OWN, but Amandajm is an experienced editor and I'm certain that these can be hashed out. I'll add that editing topics that you're passionate about can be difficult, and editing topics where you have expertise can be hugely frustrating (see WP:RANDY), but neither of these necessarily involve a conflict of interest. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Having known the subject, even well, is not a COI, because the warm glow one feels at seeing an appropriate article develop about someone you've known isn't an "outside interest". But it does mean one needs to edit with special care, and as pointed out OWN can be a problem. EEng (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Response I am indeed a connected editor, under these terms. I had no idea that this WP:COI "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends.". In fact there are a great many articles of living people on Wikipedia that have been created by friends, family or the subject themselves. When I authored one such article, I was told that the subject was "possibly the only living writer who hadn't authored their own Wikipedia page".

• In this case, and many others, I would imagine that any person who was likely to write a biography of this subject would be a person who knew the subject of the article personally.
• In many cases of long-dead individuals, it is a descendant of the notable person who writes their biography. This is human nature.
• In this case, I am not "passionate about the topic". However, there are considerations in dealing with the matter of a recently-deceased person that any reasonable editor ought to take into account, in the same way as there are warnings related to the editting of articles on the living. On the other hand, I can see that writing a biography of a close associate (or oneself) might lead t abuse.

Amandajm (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Lesser Cartographies: WP:COI is very clear, you should not create articles about friends. And, with all due respect to the editor here, it is that way for a good reason - to protect Wikipedia's requirement for neutral, reliably sourced, articles. I am not an expert on the subject here, so am not equipped to comment as to how neutral the article is and whether there are any significant omissions. What I can see though is a lack of reliable sources. Many of those used would not qualify as they are self-published and not subject to rigorous review. Mary IV (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mary IV the person has been dead for about three weeks now. No reliable biography has yet been published. Wikipedia biographies about living or recently-deceased notable people have to make use of whatever sources they can scrape up. They generally rely on newspaper articles. In this case, they majority of the articles were written either at the time she received the Order of Australia award, or within two or three days of her death. The sources themselves are impeccable. I had nothing to do with any of the sources that I have cited.

My writing on the subject is neutral. If you can find any hint of "serious omissions" then please let me know. The most serious omission that I know of is the details of her time at Sydney University, which, at this point have not come to light.

What do you think might have been left out? Read the sources, and let your imagination run wild! Amandajm (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As WP:COI says, if "they are notable enough, someone else will create the article." There is no urgency and no necessity to defy the guidelines. There is no excuse either to bypass the need for reliable sources. Mary IV (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just read the whole WP:COI blurb.

The most significant part here is that conflict of interest occurs when: Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest. This is most definitely not the case. Anything that could be said to "promote" the deceased person has been quoted from elsewhere. There is no "conflict of interest". That ought to be fairly plain.

Margaret Rodgers was not a member of my family, and although a friend for many years, through our attendance of the same church, not in my closest circle of friends. I think that the difficulties that are being made here are unwarranted. The tone of the article itself ought to inform you of that. Amandajm (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It could be argued that you are advancing your own interests here; your interests to see an article appear quickly and with your chosen content. Mary IV (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Mary IV, you are absolutely right that we should not create articles about friends: most of our friends don't pass our notability guidelines, and putting our friends in the best possible light will often fall afoul of our neutral point of view requirements. However, there is not a prohibition against such articles (the difference between should not and may not), and if the subject is notable and the article is neutral, there's nothing left to do except thank the editor for their contribution. If there's a particular section of the article where you're seeing NPOV issues, point it out and we'll discuss it here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That's very much what I wanted to say. Like all guidelines, COI is to be interpreted using common sense. The warning re friends and family is largely to ward off the flood of potential articles on non-notables. COI does not arise from any particular relationship alone, but only where such a relationship makes it difficult to focus solely on the "interest" of Wikipedia i.e. building the encyclopedia, because other interests pull him in other directions. COI can only be determined by behavior, not a simple fact. MaryIV, either point to something in the article about which you're concerned, or be silent. EEng (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Common sense says writing about a friend will inevitably lead to a conflict of interests. Mary IV (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Those close to the subject and who may have an axe to grind (I saw the discussion about whether to use "gender" or "woman", will inevitably (even if subconsciously) present a biased portrayal. WP:COI advice should not be so lightly dismissed. Mary IV (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the issue of the use of the word "gender" rather than "woman" has little to do with the subject personally (except that she was indeed a woman). It relates to the worldwide Anglican Communion in general and to the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, the largest Anglican Diocese in the world, specifically. A statement about a Roman Catholic female would be "As a woman, she could not be ordained", because that is the way that it has been in the Roman Catholic Church for many centuries and isn't likely to change very soon. But in the Anglican Communion, where woman are generally ordained, the non-ordination of women by the Sydney Diocese is viewed (in most parts of the world-wide Anglican Communion), and by people not involved with the church, as an issue of gender discrimination.

Hasn't it occurred to you, Mary IV, that people sometimes have very strong feelings and opinions about biographical subjects who have been dead for centuries? Many people are passionate about portraying Leonardo da Vinci as homosexual, and many other people are equally driven to portray Michelangelo as straight. There was a humungous row over the suggestion that James I of England had male lovers and an even bigger row over the suggestion that Edward the Black Prince's mother really was black. People want to prove that Einstein had Aspergers Syndrome, and that Francis Bacon wrote the works of Shakespeare. Anything that I have said about my friend Margaret Rodgers is less contentious than any of this stuff.

Now, please accept that there is a consensus of opinion that the article is OK. Amandajm (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Amandajm, there's no consensus that the article is OK, if by that you mean there's no way to improve it with respect to completeness and balance -- right now it's a bit of a hagiography. But that's entirely separate from this absurd COI nattering Mary IV continues to engage in. Mary IV, either take it to WP:COIN (and see which kind of laugh you get) or be quiet. Your presence here, and indeed in all of WP to date (these two being, as it happens, the identical thing), has been completely unconstructive. EEng (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. And, Mary IV, stop interjecting your later-thought-of not-so-snappy comebacks into the middle of the established thread, out of sequence. It confuses the conversation.

Fixed my indents and positioning per WP:INDENT. Mary IV (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Had it occurred to you EEng that the fact that the article is "a bit of a hagiography" might indeed be the result of a COI? Mary IV (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Amandajm for clarifying that you insisted on using the word "gender" rather than "woman" to pursue the issue of gender discrimination agenda here. And what may happen in other articles has no bearing on my observations here. Mary IV (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Never feed the trolls.

For the last time, Mary IV, suggest a specific change to the article. If Amandajm unreasonably resists such a suggestion, then maybe there's a COI problem. Until you make such a suggestion I won't be responding to any further posts by you. You are an apparent SPA who clearly knows enough not to make this tired accusation over and over, yet continues to do so.

I won't be responding to your further posts unless and until you propose a change to the article. Amandajm, I strongly suggest you ignore Mary IV's further posts. Let her shout into her own echo chamber to her heart's content. EEng (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Mary IV, SPA

Note that "Mary IV" is a single-purpose account whose only edits have been to this talkpage [1] EEng (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Every new account is a single-purpose account until it is used to start work on a second purpose. Bide your time before casting aspersions please. Mary IV (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. WP:PRECOCIOUS EEng (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Margaret Rodgers (deaconess). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313061127/http://www.deaconessministries.org.au/margaret-rodgers-am-citation to http://www.deaconessministries.org.au/margaret-rodgers-am-citation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714205236/http://www.sydneyanglicanregistry.com.au/index.php/p2/home to http://www.sydneyanglicanregistry.com.au/index.php/p2/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)