Talk:Vincent F. Hendricks
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hendricks' controversy on 22nd feb 2012
editHello Editors,
Please excuse my inexperience as an amateur wikipedia editor. I am sure some of you are aware of the issue that came up from the 22nd Feb of the photos promoting a logic class led by Prof. Hendricks. I think that this story attracted significant attention and notoreity to merit inclusion into his wikipedia page. I will grant that Prof. Hendricks has apologised promptly for this incident, however the deletion on the basis of user IP 128.193.8.40 's comment that 'All statements in Wikipedia must be supported by by reliable sources. Especially on biographies of living persons' seems like a red herring as I have given links to justify the sources.
Can we please re-include this information and put it in the context that he apologised. The issue attracted enough bloggosphere attention and academic reaction to merit a response, irrespective of whether one things it was a storm in a teacup or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kantian (talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding repeated upload of "controversies"
editIt should be noted that the information building the case against Prof Hendricks for the photos is based on "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons" and therefore subject to immediate deletion from the page. All the information is blog derived and if this is considered reliable sources it should also in the "controversy" be noted that Prof. Hendricks only participated in the pictures for a nationwide charity benefit in Denmark which is clear from [1]. It is suggested that the controversy section of Prof. Hendricks Wikipedia page is removed altogether, there are always two sides to stories like these and if Wikipedia is attempting to converge to the truth on issues like these, also factoring in the living persons clause, such posts should be properly and balanced documented which is hardly the case here.
Therefore this section has been deleted.
176.21.97.142 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Then instead of deleting the content, please just balance the story with adequate sources! I see no reason here to delete some content because of an axiom saying that supposedly there are two sides to each and every story. If the "other" side happens not to be documented, that certainly does not justify deleting the controversy section, which itself appears to be well documented enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.17.5 (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Until this section is rewritten as a whole; well balanced, with clear source and no injury, the section will be deleted. Please refer to Wikipedias Wiki-page about biographies of living persons especially parts:
Reliable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources
and
Presumption in favor of privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy
176.21.97.142 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I read this: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." There are clear sources, from ABC News and Inside Higher Ed for instance.
Hence, can you be more precise in your demand? No one is preventing you from trying to rewrite this section. Instead you deliberately chose to delete it without mentioning precisely what is wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.17.29 (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC) The fact that it was for charity doesn't make these pcitures any less sexist or the people who criticized him misinformed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.17.121 (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Needless to say, the wikiproject requires the full objective story. I agree that this "section" need to be revised. Please state why you deleted the expanded version. Ijagoso (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)