Talk:Vance McAllister: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:18, 9 April 2014 editBlueSalix (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,446 edits →please discuss edits before engaging in wholesale page rewriting ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:22, 9 April 2014 edit undoNorthBySouthBaranof (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,477 edits →please discuss edits before engaging in wholesale page rewriting Next edit →
Line 26:		Line 26:
	:'''Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.''' ] (]) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)		:'''Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.''' ] (]) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Please refer to ] - ''SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment."'' This is not a case of ]. Thank you for choosing to use dialog instead of making mass revisions. I welcome your continued collaborative approach. There is, however, no need to shout. ] (]) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)		::Please refer to ] - ''SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment."'' This is not a case of ]. Thank you for choosing to use dialog instead of making mass revisions. I welcome your continued collaborative approach. There is, however, no need to shout. ] (]) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
			:::You are claiming that there was an open marriage. No source has reported that and it is an '''unambiguous violation of ]''' to make such an unsourced negative claim. I have removed it, I will continue to remove it and if you persist on reinserting it I will request that you be blocked for inserting unsourced negative information into a living person's biography. ] (]) 18:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:22, 9 April 2014

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class

	Biography portal 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Politics C‑class

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Louisiana Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana.

U.S. Congress C‑class

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

divorce

I have several objections to the line "According to the woman's husband, himself a high school classmate of McCallister, the episode led to the breakup of their marriage"

Someone elses marriage is not strictly on topic for the BLP of McAllister
WP:NOT a tabloid.
The source says "on the road to divorce". Not divorced. Not broken up. We do not have a WP:CRYSTAL ball and should not be saying what might happen in the future.

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it to "seek a divorce" as per the exact text of the article quoted. This was a three-party relationship (love triangle) involving McAllister, Mrs. Peacock, and Mr. Peacock. The history of McAllister's relationships - when they receive substantial media coverage - is absolutely acceptable for BLP; this was one of those relationships and is as on-topic as his simultaneous other relationship with Mrs. McAllister. BlueSalix (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix please identify the specific quote that says he is seeking a divorce (Not "headed for divorce" not "on the road to divorce" etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to quote people, WP provides synthesis - WP is not a word-by-word transcript of public statements. As per multiple RS, the man has said he will seek a divorce (specifically , which may not even be listed anymore as a reference, you may have already deleted it - it's difficult to keep up with the rapid pace of deletions you're making to pertinent information in this article). BlueSalix (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

please discuss edits before engaging in wholesale page rewriting

Gaijin42, kindly use the Talk page to collaboratively improve this article with other interested editors in a calm and consensus-building manner. It is very difficult to keep up with the sheer volume and substantial nature of the edits you're making. Also, if you have a COI with respect to the topic of this article, disclosure would be appreciated. Many of your edits, such as insisting on placing periods outside of quotes, are becoming extremely disruptive. Thank you, kindly, in advance. BlueSalix (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no COI. I haven't been to Louisiana in 20 years. I saw the story on my RSS reader when it broke, and knew it was going to be a magnet for WP:BLP violations. which it is. You are making repeated assertions about a BLP that are not supported by the sources. Removing BLP violations is not disruptive, it is REQUIRED BY POLICY. I do apologize for the period/quote issue. McAllister is WP:WELLKNOWN and the scandal is covered. It should be included. His staffer, her husband, etc are NOT. Their names should not be included. Misquoting them, and making up information about acceptance of Open marriages when the sources say no such thing is a blatant violation of BLP. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never included the names of the Peacocks in the article, though to avoid confusion I have referenced them in the Talk page. Please do not make false accusations against other editors. This is not Battle-Wiki. If you have other issues they should be discussed on the Talk page before you begin disruptive editing and making bad faith accusations against fellow editors. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The wikilink to "Open marriage" was clearly and entirely inappropriate, as no reliable source has suggested, much less claimed, any such thing existed. And no, Misplaced Pages does not provide original synthesis - that is specifically prohibited by the No original research policy.

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:SYNTHNOT - SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." This is not a case of original synthesis. Thank you for choosing to use dialog instead of making mass revisions. I welcome your continued collaborative approach. There is, however, no need to shout. BlueSalix (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You are claiming that there was an open marriage. No source has reported that and it is an unambiguous violation of the biographies of living persons policy to make such an unsourced negative claim. I have removed it, I will continue to remove it and if you persist on reinserting it I will request that you be blocked for inserting unsourced negative information into a living person's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories: