User talk:Ashburnian

April 2014

Hello, I'm Darkwind. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Dick Black (politician) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —Darkwind (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dick Black (politician), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Haminoon (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the edits I made to the Dick Black (politician) page in an attempt to make the page an honest recording of the man. The information I removed was slanderous and inaccurate. People have continuously been trying to use his Wikipedia page as a means of slandering this man instead of an honest portrayal of his career. All information I have place on the page is cited by references and all biographical information comes straight from the Senator himself. Please stop making changes that place derogatory and incorrect information on this page. (Ashburnian) Jan. 8, 2015

We require disputed material to be supported by references to reliable sources. Newspapers such as the Washington Post are reliable sources. The Senator's website is not. Information an individual posts about himself is usable only under certain conditions—generally speaking it has to be uncontroversial and not self-serving. Note that our role is to provide a neutral, unbiased article—not a hatchet job, but not a whitewash either. If you're adding or removing material on the basis of whether it is favorable to the subject, you are doing the wrong thing, and will likely be reverted.

Be careful with terms like "slanderous". "Slander" is a legal term with a specific meaning. Information that is unfavorable to the person's reputation is not necessarily "slanderous", and we would not include it if it were. "Inaccurate" is irrelevant. The material is either supported by a reference to a reliable source or it is not. That is all that matters.--Srleffler (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

1. You are removing biographical information that is not in dispute based on it not coming from reliable sources. According to that page, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." I hope you are not arguing that the Senator himself is not a reliable source for his own biography.

2. It is indeed slanderous to "quote" someone without providing evidence that he actually said something, as the Mother Jones article does. As such, it marks itself as an unreliable source. In addition, the claim that he supports spousal rape is a complete fabrication that has since been updated on the Mother Jones article to show that he in fact voted for the bill to make spousal rape a crime.

3. Your comment that "Inaccurate is irrelevant," is patently false. Refer to the biographies of living persons policy which is linked to anytime you click the edit link for this page. It states quite clearly, "We must get the article right." Inaccurate is indeed very relevant.

You say that Wikipedia is not to be used as a hatchet-job, but that is exactly what you are doing. Numerous people have put up information that is strictly defamatory and every time I or someone else tries to make the page an accurate portrayal, you or someone else changes it back.Ashburnian (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at today's edits when I get a chance. I suggest you take a closer look at the policy on reliable sources. The term has a particular meaning on Wikipedia. The Senator is certainly not a "reliable source" on his own biography, or anything else. A "reliable source" is an editor-controlled publication such as a newspaper or a book from an established publisher. We can use undisputed and reasonably neutral facts from the Senator, but anything positive would require a proper source.

The legal definition of slander doesn't depend on whether evidence is provided in the source itself. If the quote were false, it might be libelous rather than slanderous, in any event. I am not a lawyer—and neither are you. I'll take a look at the text and the source. All that we need to care about is whether the source is of adequate quality, and whether it contains the quote. Retractions and changes by the source publication are very much relevant.

It doesn't matter whether you, or I, or the Senator feels something is "accurate". If something is stated in a reliable source, we can use it. The key to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy is that anything contentious has to be backed up by a proper source. "Getting the article right" means that anything that someone might disagree with can be traced to a reliable source. It does not mean that the subject of the article will be allowed to whitewash it by removing properly sourced but unfavorable information. --Srleffler (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You say that the Senator is not a reliable source about his biography. Wikipedia policy begs to differ.

Using the subject as a self-published source

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1.it is not unduly self-serving;

2.it does not involve claims about third parties;

3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Providing a biography of his life and career is not unduly self-serving.

Furthermore, Wikipedia policy calls for the removal of contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, yet I keep seeing contentious information continuously placed back on this page from tabloid journalism sources like Mother Jones and the Gay and Lesbian Times. This page was originally created as an attack page, and I am trying to turn it into a legitimate page.Ashburnian (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're quoting the right policy. "Reliable sources" are not subject to those restrictions. Under the conditions that are listed, we can use information that individuals publish about themselves. "Unduly self-serving" is going to apply to a lot of positive things that a politician might say about his or her life. Autobiographical sources are best used for purely neutral facts.

If you see material in the article that is not supported by a source, and you feel that the material is incorrect, you are free to remove it. Make it clear in your edit summary that you are removing the material because it is unsourced. If you do this, no one is permitted to restore the material without providing a reference to a reliable source. If you see unsourced contentious material in an article, it just means that no one has challenged it yet. "Poorly sourced" might be best handled by starting a discussion on the article's talk page. I don't, for example, have any idea whether Mother Jones is considered a reliable source. I would want to look into that and get opinions from other editors before assuming one way or another. --Srleffler (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP

I noticed the edit war and the BLPN matter - I decided to rectify the problem. It seems you were correct and it took me all of a minute to verify that Mother Jones was pulling the quote way out of context. I have fixed one issue, but please direct me to others. I am extremely strict when it comes to WP:BLP and will try to be as fair as I can. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - especially for quotes. The easiest way to find misrepresentation or other issues is to find a quote. Any words you say can be later used out of context and often against you, but the source will still be accurate for repeating what was said. This is why context matters and you should try to find the origin of the material when quotes are used in this manner. Hope I helped. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate what User:ChrisGualtieri has done here but I don't think were entirely correct. If you think someone has been quoted out of context you should say so - it is very different to saying the quote is made up. MJ was actually quoting the usually reliable Scotland on Sunday (https://twitter.com/mtredden/status/433625189612392449), and it was SoS that lost the context not MJ. Regards, Haminoon (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Context matters and the further from the origin, the more likely a problem will occur. The origin of the problem does not matter so much as that it occurred in the first place. However, Ashburnian did make an accusation and it was a bit of an overreaction, but it was well-intentioned. Without going into the history of the edits and such, I saw everyone working in good faith and set at odds by reliably sourced material. Wikipedia does not have a handbook on resolving these situations and these sourcing issues. In the heat of the moment, such things will happen anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

COI: Dick Black (politician)

Do you have an affiliation with Dick Black? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not. I contacted Senator Black to ask him about a quote, and he replied saying he did not make that quote. The material I removed was the subject of a controversy in 2014 that led to me filing an ANI complaint about my edits being routinely reverted. I was upheld in that controversy and the material stayed removed for years until the person who originally posted it came back and renewed the content. I had the page on my watch list but wikipedia did not notify me of the changes. You can see the discussion on the Dick Black talk page and here under BLP that the issue was resolved. When I came back to add content to the page earlier this week I found the content restored. When I removed it again, Innisfree987 restored it. When I removed it again, I pointed out the previous controversy. That led to Innisfree987 placing the COI tag on the page. Ashburnian (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)