Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:12, 10 January 2008

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Removal of material relating to arraignment

Misplaced Pages is not News. If and when this person is convicted, we can then present the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, and doesn't agree with general practice. We don't wait until a U.S. presidential nominee is elected to report on their campaign. We don't wait until the Olympics are over to report who is competing. The indictment is a fact of history, regardless of whether the case comes to trial and regardless of its outcome. The indictment is not a rumored event, but an official act by the state Attorney General. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it does make sense to be sensitive about adding negative information, and if there are simply charges, it changes the perspective quite a bit. These are all things that have to be considered when using discretion. It's not ok to simply say, "it happened, so it should be there", without being thoughtful to the context. This is a general statement, not a specific one to this article. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For that reason, we ensure that we source everything well, and we encourage the addition of relevant points of view on the other side. There's a significant difference between providing a balanced view of the controversy and hiding all mention of the controversy at all — especially in such a case, which I'd guess is the only reason a ton of people (including me) have even heard of him in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed all references to the charges against the subject. I stumbled upon this article and noted the following in apparent violation of WP BLP policy of "Do No Harm". I think this may be a very serious matter based on the following observations:

• In spite of the fact that the subject had a very long career in public service (20 years), this article did not come into existance until the very day on which the charges were published in a newspaper -- within hours.

• The first version of the article did not say anything of substance about the person except that he was a PA Democrat and that he was up on corruption charges.

• The article failed to mention the highly notable, easily sourceable and balancing POV that the charges are alleged to be politically motivated. This is a gross omission in a BLP. The identification of the target as a Democrat combined with the failure to identify the prosecutor as a Republican gives the article a very bad slant.

• Whether intentional or not, the article had the effect of serving a single purpose, that of using Misplaced Pages to promulgate and amplify the news of the day around the fact that the subject is a politicial figure in the Democratic party accused of criminal conduct. The effect of Misplaced Pages as a "megawatt bullhorn" to announce the news, in this context "does harm". This kind of "harm" is very serious business. Presumably the subject person will have a trial, or will plead. In either case, this "effect" (intended or unintended, of Misplaced Pages serving as the prosecutors "bullhorn") could prejudice jurors and/or weaken the subject person's negotiating position.

• The article has the clear effect of serving (intentionally or unintentionally) the explicitly stated purpose of an organization (the GOP) in "getting the word out" on corruption among the opposition party, and the "single source" citations have the further effect of reinforcing a parallel editorial campaign of the "Beaver County Times", as seen in several examples here.

• The language used in the article's original version, (again, created on the very day that the news came out) contains nothing positive on Mr. LaGrotta, cites only a single source (the Beaver County Times), cites that source twice, and merely summarizes these two news reports. This gives the impression of an NPOV problem. Further inspection reveals every good reason to assume good faith on the part of the editor who created the article, but I am concerned about the harm to the subject that may be inflicted nonetheless.

To me, it looks like prima facie evidence that the effect (intended or not) is to advance a political agenda against Mr. LaGrotta and his political party, and in "spreading the news" via Misplaced Pages, this has (intended or not) the appearance of "political muckraking", and this presents a possible gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy on BLPs -- specifically the "Do No Harm" guidelines in BLP context.

So, IF this article came into existence for the sole purpose of promulgating negative information about someone, or if it had primarily that effect, THEN this article needs to be deleted immediately or modified to remove any potentially harmful material. Again, appearances may be (often times are) deceiving, but we need to be primarily concerned about the effect of the article in the context of "Do No Harm", especially in the case of a BLP). I am no lawyer, but I've seen (in a professional context) some legal ramifications in this area and I think Misplaced Pages might be out on a limb here. Misplaced Pages's problems here are (a) rigorous enforcement of the policies around BLP's, (b) vigilance around the "politicization" (intentional or not) of Misplaced Pages, and (c) rigorous enforcement of the specific policy of "Do No Harm" in the BLP context.

Let's err on the side of caution.

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In my view, User:Wndl42 is misinterpreting the "do not harm" principle of WP:BLP. It doesn't mean "Never report any harmful information on a living person", it means "When there is doubt as to whether information should be included, the default position is the one that does not cause harm to the subject." The subject is a public official who has been arraigned on serious charges. Reporting that and citing it with the large number of available sources does not run afoul of WP:BLP (that said, I won't restore the information until we have a consensus). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is clearly a doubt about whether the information should be included. I feel it's undue weight, and others agree. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=175665029 --Jkp212 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The information on the indictment must be returned. You removed this information in spite of the overwhemling consensus on the Afd page. You are misinterpreting Do No Harm. All of this is in the news! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedShiftPA (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 January 2008

I'd like to note that I've left a note on the WP:Pennsylvania talk page, asking for someone to expand the article's coverage of him in materials unrelated to the current controversy. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that --Jkp212 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The information was well-sourced and clearly relevant to his political career. His political career is the reason we have an article on him. Friday (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the argument about including this information appears not to question whether this stuff really happened, the big question is whether it's doing harm. How is it harmful to him to have a short note that he was charged with felonies, when anyone can easily find out far more about him anywhere? It was never half of the article until others, holding that NPOV required statements against the indictment (which opinion I'm not questioning), added significant amounts of text. If you think NPOV requires that text, don't delete the entire section because it's too large. Unless you think that two properly-sourced sentences about a well-publicised case can hurt him, don't support their removal — and it's going to be a strange day indeed when sourced statements in his favor can hurt him. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with those who feel that it is appropriate to back mention of the indictment in the article. However, since they are allegations, not convictions, it is to my way of thinking less important that the information be restored now. I guess I am saying that, while I personally would include it, I don't think that it's important enough to try to add it without consensus here. I also am given pause by the fact that the indictment statements very quickly attracted further edits about a pending civil suit before being reverted - something that has far less relevance or encyclopedic value.

Since a number of editors are concerned about undue weight, it seems clear that the next step is to expand the article with additional information, as I gather is being done. I propose to wait to see how that progresses. Finally, I would note that the fact of the subject's indictment still is listed (and I think properly so) at 2006 Pennsylvania General Assembly bonus controversy. Xymmax (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT concerns and expanded article

Given the excellent work done by a couple of editors in expanding the article, how do the editors who favoured the material's removal now feel about the re-insertion of a brief summary? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done my part to expand the article a bit. There is a lot of information out there about this guy. If you would like to help the expansion, here are some good sources that I have been unable to incorporate into the article yet: --RedShiftPA (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I have it right-a prominent politician is indicted and editors want that fact censored from the article! Misplaced Pages is starting to look like Alice in Wonderland. One rule for Democratic political figures; one rule for everyone else. This is as bad as the pedophilia cover-up on the Peter Yarrow article. John celona (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles