Wikipedia

User:Filll/AGF Challenge Best-Write the biography according to published reliable sources even if it is unfavorable to the subject

< User:Filll
  1. Only if "reliable sources" are not the product of original research. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. -- Naerii 02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Yes, but stick to reliable sources, not your own sleuthing, and avoid undue weight to critical parts if unwarranted. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Assuming sufficient notability, all available sources should be carefully evaluated and the article should give due weight to all aspects of what can be verified. We're an encyclopedia, not a charity case. First and foremost, the question is for what exactly this guy is notable in the first place. Is it e.g. the books he wrote or rather his false claims of expertise and affiliation with that college? Or is it the cheating scandal? Whatever can be verified to be the primary reason we should have an article on him belongs prominently in the lead. After that, a biographical section if sufficient material can be verfied for that. After that, as-much-in-depth-as-verifiable sections on the things he's notable for. Dorftrottel (harass) 01:37, April 13, 2008
  6. I think that Dorftrotte sums it up pretty well. I would not go out of my way to disparage the subject, but in no way would I hold back from reporting the truth. This is assuming the topic meets WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Be very careful to avoid writing this article with a negative tone. In this case, the reviews of the books should be neutrally reported - not focusing on the most dismissive and/or personal quotes in the entire review:) . The educational details should not say "Libery Wash has no history of his PhD" unless thats reported in secondary sources, but his own claim to a PhD should be attributed to him. The theft incident is irrelevant to his notability. In general, all the "negative" results of your own research are still results of your own research. The statements of Johnson about other scholars should be reported with an eye to those that are considered most notable by secondary scholars, not those the article's author finds most outrageous. The self-puffery need not be included. The Winthrop College release should certainly be paraphrased, or better still, quoted in part. Done right, this article won't have undue weight on criticism, will follow BLP, and will convey to the reader that we are dealing with a nutter, but respectfully. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Briefly, reffing to the college statement and to some of the reviews, saying "his works are often not high well regarded in the academic community" or similar. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. This is how to write the article according to policy Alexfusco5 16:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. if enough RS can be found and the article is NPOV as they allow. Dan Beale-Cocks 22:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Only if there is any notability. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. If the sources really are sound and the reviewers expert. Any doubt and I'd prefer deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Which I interpret to include the material about the football, IFF there are really good references per BLP and the event was actually really notable. As for the books, probably omit mention of them unless there were major reviews in popular sources (there's something unrealistic in the question--the various scholarly journals would never have bothered reviewing obvious nonacademic trash) . As for the degrees, ignore them. Discuss what's important and just that. DGG (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Second choice; prefer deletion. But I would favor this instead if the depth of sources make an overall picture that the person has attracted biographic attention from reliable sources. Mangojuicetalk 03:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. The reviews in scholarly journals would seem enough to grant him notability, so an article can be created (for the record, I'm not convinced by the idea of the currently proposed WP:OPTOUT). I would not credit him as Dr, but would make a note somewhere about his claims to being one. The press release from the university is a little problematic as it is a primary source, but together with the Sports Illustrated interview would seem to be enough for a small statement along the lines of "Johnson claims a title of Doctor due, according to him, to his knowledge in the field". Warn him about legal threats, and direct him to OTRS or Mike Godwin if he wants to make a formal case. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Assuming he really is notable (and really a public figure that needs a biography), yes. Otherwise, per BLP-Lock or OptOut, I'd have a tiny stub or nothing. Probably nothing. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. His notability seems a bit borderline, so deletion might be necessary, but I'd start here. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Write an article according to published sources using as neutral language as possible. Make sure published sources are reliable and do not include any of your own personal sleuthing. Mention that subject makes alternate claims. Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Shouldn't we always write our articles in this way? Fram (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. The football scandal material should come first since that is what the subject is notable for. Then a paragraph should deal with Orchid books. The fact of the books, the number, their type (e.g. the illustrations), since when he authored them. Then the reviews. Any favourable reviews that can be found in RS to go first, then just enough of the negative ones to make it clear that the overwhelming response has been negative. Don't mention the PhD issue since there is not enough reliable secondary-sourced material for either side. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Yes, but not through OR, find a reliable source. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 12:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. Yes, but only referencing published reliable sources, avoiding any of the primary sources. Kelly hi! 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. --Dial (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  24. My answer presumes that this person is in fact notable for the football cheating stuff; if not, I'd be tempted to delete in the interests of doing no harm. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  25. Something between this and the bland version, since even the generally reliable sources seem a little uneven and I wouldn't be entirely confident in them. Mackan79 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  26. GlassCobra 16:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  27. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  28. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  29. We don't deal in "what if's" - just the facts Jack. Since I'm the one writing the article, my original research (talking to the Dean etc) must be discounted. The College's Press Release simply means I omit any mention of connections to the college. Mentioning the football scandal is fine if verified by reliable sources (court cases or football tribunal records, reputable papers), mentioning the books is fine only if he has actually registered them for an ISBN as he should, otherwise the books aren't really notable and don't really bear mentioning - even the reviews on his work from others point to this. All in all - I'm writing the article and really I should be the one to know if there is enough good material left to make into an article/stubAkitora (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  30. Assuming, of course, that you use published sources and not WP:OR. shoy 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  31. -- RC-0722 247.5/1 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  32. a reliable source is not original research, unoriginal research is good. If the official statement is published, then it is ok. Rds865 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  33. Truth is truth, even if it hurts. ---G.T.N. (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  34. Most likely I would just not bother with any of this. But if I were to involve myself, I would probably do something like write according to published reliable sources. I may even try and tone down a lot of the negative things. But in the end, it would be useless as either the biography would be deleted or replaced with a bland, non-informative article. --C S (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  35. The unreliability of a self-proclaimed expert is of encyclopedic interest. The biographies of living persons should not be libelous, but unfavorable information that is sufficiently documented can be included. In this case there appears to be no secret of the man's lack of credentials or of his lack of knowledge on his chosen subject, so direct harm to the man's life shouldn't be great. The article should very carefully stick to what can be documented.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  36. Assuming there is sufficient evidence that this guy is even notable enough for an entry....
  37. Information that dissagrees with the subject and/or is some kind of unfavorable information should still be included. What should one do if the writer demands that his biography be written the way he dictates? Direct him to Wikipedia policies of course. However, it should be noted that writing his biography in a negative or biased tone is not right at all, regardless if the editor agrees of dissagrees with the person the biography is written about. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  38. Kevin Baastalk 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  39. In principle, if he is notable due to the football scandal then we should have an article on him. The article should concentrate on his role in the football scandal, but no relevant verifiable information should be censored. Pfainuk talk 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  40. According to published sources, without negativity, without OR. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  41. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  42. Anything else other than reliable sources sounded like original research (I didn't read the entire situation, kill me :x) --BirdKr (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  43. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  44. But keeping in mind BLP. Sceptre (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  45. Ditto. You have to be very careful. Don't make any claims other than "According to source X, 'Y'." With that caveat in mind, the authors' books themselves can be cited, including his self-aggrandizement, but should be balanced with the critical articles. COGDEN 05:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  46. Adhere to WP:V and WP:RS, avoid WP:OR, and do not violate WP:BIO when doing so. --Shruti14 t c s 23:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  47. The football scandal should be sourced from whatever official inquiry was made into it, in preference to press coverage. The orchid research and publications should be carefully written to note the status of the publications (if people are in the habit of referring to the subject with academic titles, then he has some sort of notability and respect). Note that self-published material is not a reliable source, but the existence of it is a relevant fact. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  48. What Sam said. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  49. This one is similar to the "wife" scenario above. You have to present the information as is, even it is doesn't favor the subject. Write the biography as teh information presents it with reliable sources. Otherwise your going to get into BLP and BIO. Dusticomplain/compliment 18:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  50. Honestly I wouldn't have bothered doing half the things mentioned in the description, but I would include the sources I found whether they are favorable or not. I wouldn't support deletion, because the description did say he was notable for somethings undisputed, like writing the orchids books and the football cheating scandal. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  51. Stick to the facts. Try to validate and gather references. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 02:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  52. Going from the references you have, be careful to balance the article. If no better sources can be found, include the subjects claims about himself without the puffery; be sure to attribute this i.e. "X said in a 2004 interview with Blah that he had a PhD from ..." If the books are notable enough to be mentioned they should also include a brief factual statement of the scientific mainstream view of his publications. If after this work, you find that the gentleman is really notable only for the single scandal, consider an article on the scandal instead. Shell babelfish 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  53. This is the only option. AGF is irrelevant to this ; stick to the known facts. csloat (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  54. This is the only suitable option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  55. Neutral, quoting published sources. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  56. Definitley. Joelster (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  57. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  58. Trishm (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Keep it simple and reliable
  59. This matches my intent, but my style might match "Write a very bland biography with almost no information" a little more closely. Most of what we have is junk and irrelevant. As Dorftrotte says, what is this guy notable for? Probably whatever Sports Illustrated was talking to him about, so put the emphasis there, and dismiss the orchids as "has written several self-published books about orchids that have received poor reviews in the scientific press" and the college career as "Theobold Johnson graduated with a B.S. from Liberty Washington Community College 30 years ago. Dr. is merely a courtesy title; he doesn't have a Ph.D. (ref SI)."--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  60. DiderotWasRight (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  61. This is standard procedure for creating Wikipedia article, correct? We can mention he calls himself a Doctor, but is in fact not one.--Emprovision (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  62. We write the facts that we find through sources for writing articles, and not what the subject requests how we write it. Keeping in mind BLP, of course. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  63. Verifiability, not truth. --Iamzork (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  64. You start the example by saying he is notable therefore the article stays. I would write a minimal article addressing almost exclusively the notable issue. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  65. Obviously one should be factual, regardless of the desires of the subject of the article, and the fact that the subject is notable for football means that the article should stay. However, the subject has absolutely no notability in the field of botany/orchids, so that subject shouldn't be included in the Wikipedia article; there's no reason to embarrass the guy about something that won't have anything to do with why people are looking him up in Wikipedia. skeptical scientist (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  66. Using only reliable sourcesFelixmeister (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  67. Kla22374 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  68. Using reliable sources, and be EXTREMELY careful to not include NPOV. Cite every single somewhat conterversial statement, and if no source can be found, don't put it in. Ask multiple people to read it over very carefully for NPOV. And read BLP a couple of times.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  13:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  69. RS sucks for pretty much 99% of crooks Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  70. Write it exactly per all the sources I have except the puffery about calling him Dr. due to reverence. If the author tries to change it, ban him. --Logical Premise (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  71. Per Iamzork. —G716 <T·C> 06:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  72. Stick to dry facts and dial down the negativity which is only likely to invite problems. If questions arise address them fairly and stick with policies on reliable sourcing and BLPs. This is all assuming, of course, that they are notable enough in the orchid world which seems a bit borderline. It may be fine to simply delete it if it's all borderline and more problems than it's worth. 71.139.36.216 (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  73. Facts --  Chzz  ►  11:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  74. WP:Not censored. We gotta cover the facts, even if they aren't favorable for the subject. Onopearls (t/c) 06:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  75. You have reliable sources including book reviews; write sparingly to neither fluff nor smear and move on. If the subject makes a huge stink send them a copy of what we could write and offer them a courtesy deletion instead. -- Banjeboi 09:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  76. Portray the subject honestly. Even if it's a tad unfavorable. Strombollii (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  77. TheGRANDRans ✫Speak to Me!✫ 00:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  78. Reyk YO! 12:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  79. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 19:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  80. Policy before pressure ! Here the biography is dubious. Notability is through the football and orchid books. If the football scandal is reported by third party reliable sources and the orchid books are published by a reliable publishing house then the biog meets notability guidelines. A person can be a successful author without academic qualifications. Any other sources which were reliable should also be included as long as undue wight was not given. The biog would be short of course though and kept on my watchlist for a while, to ensure no COI reulted from him trying to edit in his personal view through the backdoor, and all info about the more negative aspects would also be included to ensure NPOV.Chaosdruid (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  81. Something a person wrote about themselves is a primary source, and should not be used. Research done personally without reliable publication backup is OR. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  82. Just pay very close attention to your sources, and make sure that every unflattering detail is properly sourced, preferably with page number citations for every sentence or cohesive paragraph. VanIsaacWScontribs 08:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  83. Scary but right. Obviously be really careful to get every statement precisely sourced, specially when unfavourable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  84. Is anyone reminded of "Professor Lockhart" from Harry Potter? Honestly. Eman235/talk 04:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  85. I'd stick to the reliable sources; ensuring that they did not fall victim to this man's peacocking and lying about his achievements. Melody Concertotalk 03:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  86. Agree with Eman235, this guy is worse than Lockhart. Why kill your honesty by fearing him? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Filll/AGF_Challenge_Best-Write_the_biography_according_to_published_reliable_sources_even_if_it_is_unfavorable_to_the_subject&oldid=1090618250"