Talk:Harold Orr

Responding to comments on the page

I have added a lead section as per comments and have linked the page to other wikipages to make it less of an orphan. June 14-2023 Saskaboom (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

There is a lot of good information in this article that demonstrates notability criteria. However, I question its neutrality. It reads as if it's mostly written by someone close to the subject, and more like a tribute than an encyclopedia entry. It lacks sources for a lot of the personal information and contains a lot of puffery. The 'lineage' section also seems kind of out of place—what value does that add to the article? It is certainly not a common inclusion in BLP. I suggest that a lot of that stuff should be cut down and the article should focus on Orr's clearly notable contributions to sustainable building. Perhaps contributors can find another place to publish a tribute article. Other justin (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

However, I would like to discuss a few points that might merit reconsideration or inclusion to provide a well-rounded portrayal of Harold Orr’s life and contributions. Here are the areas of discussion:

1. Family Background and Early Life:
   • Harold Orr’s upbringing, rooted in community service and religious values, played a significant role in shaping his professional and personal endeavors. There are several reliable references from secondary sources detailing his family background and early life which contribute to understanding the motivations behind his community service work.
2. Community Service and Religious Involvement:
   • Harold Orr’s contributions extend beyond his professional achievements in energy efficiency. His involvement with the Western Christian College; Oklahoma Christian University; University of Saskatchewan Greystone Singers and his community service are notable aspects of his life that had a significant impact on others. This facet of his life presents a holistic view of Harold Orr as an individual deeply ingrained in community betterment, which is well-documented.
3. Ancestry:
   • While the importance of ancestry might vary among individuals and over time, it is historically notable and could have been a driving force behind Harold Orr’s community service and loyalty to causes. A discussion, backed by reliable references, could shed light on how historical and familial ties influenced Harold Orr’s lifelong commitments.
4. Ability to Convey Technical Information:
   • The 2017 Rob Dumont Energy Management Award https://www.emtfsask.ca/awards_winners_2017.htmlacknowledges Harold Orr’s ability to make technical issues easily understandable, which helped spread knowledge to a wider audience. This ability is a notable aspect of his legacy that contributed to the promotion of energy conservation both in Canada and abroad.

Saskaboom (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response here. I hope to get some additional opinions on this. For my part, as long as there are reliable sources cited, I don't really have an issue with any of this being mentioned in the article, but I am a bit more concerned with how it's done. In my opinion, there should be less editorializing than in earlier edits, and more letting the facts speak for themselves. For example, I think it violates neutrality to add in sentences like, "and this demonstrates a lifelong commitment to x"; instead, the evidence should just be presented. Does that make sense? On specifics:

1. In my opinion, fine to mention, but not to editorialize (i.e. include info about the family and their service, but don't draw conclusions that aren't made clear by reliable sources)
2. Same as above
3. This one, I'd treat the same as the first point. I do not support a separate genealogy section in the article, as I've not seen this done anywhere else on Wikipedia for this type of article. To me, the third line in the first section, if there is a reliable source for it, seems adequate. Happy to get other opinions, though.
4. I'll add in a sentence about this with a reference to that source. Let me know (or edit it) if you aren't happy with it.

Other justin (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work

North8000 (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)