Talk:Libby Garvey

BLP Removals

I'm removing two paragraphs from the article due to BLP violations.

Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, now that this content has been challenged as a BLP violation, please do not restore unless and until a consensus forms here. I'm adding a notice of this discussion to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to solicit further opinions.

Paragraph 1

In April 2013 Garvey chose to quote criticism of streetcars from Toronto mayor Rob Ford. Quoting Ford caused local papers to call her judgment into question, as Ford had committed a series of embarrassing gaffes, including being filmed highly intoxicated, smoking crack, and uttering racist and homophobic slurs.[8]

• Note, the archived source used by the article appears to be broken, or stuck in an infinite loop. I found what I believe is the matching source based upon the article title and author (the online publication apparently has changed names since the original article was published).

Paragraph 1 -- Discussion

There are multiple problems with this paragraph. The phrase "causing local papers to call her judgment question" is clearly a contentious statement that needs to be sourced. However the source in question says NO SUCH THING. I've read this short 216 word article several times and no where is anyone questioning the subject's judgment, much "less local papers". Per policy this is reason enough alone to remove this paragraph. At the very least this was an extremely sloppy interpretation of the source.

The second problem is that article doesn't say anything about Ford smoking crack and uttering slurs, etc. At best the article characterized Ford as a "colorful Mayor". While there are multiple sources confirming Ford did do and say such things, they didn't occur in this source. Combining this with other sources is original research and might give the appearance, intentional or not, that paints Garvey in a negative light.

Finally, while it it might seem like nitpicking, the text says "local papers", as in more than one. I would not bring this up, except that this is also an issue in the second paragraph, discussed below. That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 2

Her quote of Ford attracted the attention of Toronto journalists, who characterized her as a "rogue member of local government" and "Virginia's Rob Ford".[2][9][10]

Paragraph 2 -- Discussion

Just to get the issue out of the way early, this statement says "Toronto journalists", (as in more than one), characterized Garvey in a certain way. This statement has three sources. The second source and the third source only mention that Garvey quoted Ford by saying "I hate those damn streetcars – they are a pain in the rear end." They in no way, shape, or form call Garvey a "rouge member of local government". In fact, they make no value judgments about Ford, much less Garvey! Thus we have one source making an extremely contentious statement. Per the section of the WP:PUBLICFIGURE BLP policy, which states:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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.

• Note the emphasis on the phrase "multiple reliable" was not added by me. The text above is verbatim from the policy page.

Since there is only one source (and being an "alternative" newspaper, a lower quality source) making this claim about Garvey being a "rouge member of local government", once again per policy this is reason enough alone to remove this paragraph.

The same can also be said for calling Garvey "Virginia's Rob Ford", which I doubt is meant as a compliment. Only one source makes that claim (the alternative newspaper), and furthermore it does not exist in the body, but only the article's headline. There have been several discussions about whether or not article titles are considered to be part of an article, like this one from 2010, this from 2012, this from 2013, and this from last year. All of which have many editors saying that headlines should not be considered to be part of articles as they are often A) not written by the author of the article and B) they are often used as "attention grabbers".

But perhaps the most comprehensive is this discussion from 2014 where the editor who opened the discussion said "They [article headlines] are not written by the journalist and are meant to catch the reader's eye, not accurately represent the article", an opinion that was endorsed by many. Ultimately the closing admin said "there is clearly general agreement that headlines should, at the very least, be treated cautiously and taken 'with a pinch of salt'." I have no doubt whatsoever that calling this BLP subject "Virginia's Rob Ford" based upon the headline from a lower quality source is not a cautious use, but rather throwing caution to the wind. That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

explanation

There is a contributor who uses bare-urls in references - a very bad practice. I've left them a civil heads-up urging them to use properly populated {{cite}} templates. But they erased that comment form their talk page, telling me to "fuck off".

And yet, they have done so, once again.

Worse, the link they supplied doesn't even mention either Libby Garvey or Eric Gusthall.

I found the correct wapo link, and it doesn't support their edit. They wrote that Garvey "easily defeated" Gusthall, when the preliminary results reported by the wapo were actually quite close. Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The contributor who supplied the wrong url made an edit with the edit summary: "per the source which uses the word easily. Nor does Sullivan need mentioning. This is not an opinion piece an can be used in Wikipedia's voice". The original incorrect URL this contributor supplied, did not use the term easily, as it did not mention either Garvey or Gusthall, at all. I didn't notice that the correct URL used the the word easily, as I saw the preliminary results it reported were: Garvey, 8362; Gusthall, 6878. That's close. 82.25 percent.

If the results were unequivocally distant I would have no problem with the article saying "easily", with no equivocation, or attribution. But, since the results were actually pretty close, any use of the word "easily" has to be attributed. It would be simplest to just leave the word out. Attributing opinions to the journalist who said them is a good idea, for various reasons, including that it prevents confusion. Without attribution readers and contributors can wonder whether the opinions belong to an RS, or are editorializing on the part of contributors.

I can't help but notice that the style of this other contributor is to edit in a way that I think is a trigger to edit-warring. So, I am not going to revert this edit, and stem this edit-war in the bud. But I am going to warn them, in the strongest possible terms, to be more careful not to edit in a way that triggers edit warring. That may require you to pause, and not edit, and rather enter into a candid and collegial dialogue. None of us is infallible. So we all need to be open to the possibility the other guy is correct, and that we are wrong. I urge you to try being more open to the possibility you may be wrong, and that your correspondent is correct. Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The continued insistence that Garvey won "easily" over Gusthall?

As I explained, above, while the results of the local Democratic primary, which determined whether Garvey would be entitled to be listed as the official Democratic candidate for the Arlington County Board were relatively close, Patricia Sullivan, a reporter for the Washington Post, described Garvey "easily" winning over Gusthall. Gusthall had 82 percent as many votes as Garvey. That is close enough Garvey couldn't really be confident she was the winner, until the results were counted.

WP:NPOV has advice as to how to maintain a neutral point of view, even when referencing sources that make non-obvious assertions. Attribution is important. It would be okay to write, "Patricia Sullivan, writing in the Washington Post, described Garvey as easily beating her rival Eric Gusthall, when she polled slightly more than 20 percent more votes than he did."

But, as I suggested above, since the results were relatively close, it would be simplest to simply choose not to repeat Sullivan's assertion. We are under no obligation to do so.

That man from Nantucket has reverted the wording, twice, to "easily". When Mr Nantucket reverted Sro23 his last edit summary said: "Undid revision 725819493 by Sro23 (talk) as per talk, this is supported by the source". In fact, as anyone can see, Mr Nantucket did not make any attempt to explain why they thought it was encyclopedic to describe this relatively close election as an easy win, not here on the talk page at least. Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

What? Who are you to determine that the results were "relatively close"? That's an opinion. Sullivan is a reliable source, not a columnist, and her analysis of the results is noteworthy. ArlNow.com, called it a "decisive victory". These two organizations are the preeminent sources on Arlington politics. InsideNova, also strong on local politics called the victory as a "comfortable margin". I fail to see how "easily" is POV, especially when we have multiple sources saying the results were anything but "relatively close". It is no more POV than saying a particular election was a "landslide victory", when there are multiple reliable sources making this claim. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I will give my opinion: regardless of what the sources say, "easily" does not belong really anywhere on wikipedia because it is not neutral language. It violates WP:IMPARTIAL and sounds almost clichéd (WP:WORDS), at least that's what I believe. Sro23 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• That man from Nantucket, there is a different standard for what we can say in an internal discussion, and what we can write in article space. I am not held to the standards of article space when I make a point here on the talk page.

  Is Patricia Sullivan a reliable source? Sure! But she still needs to have her opinions credited to her, if we are going to comply with WP:NPOV. I explicitly included her name. You discluded it, and inserted an opinion of hers, without attribution. Complying with NPOV requires not reporting opinions as facts.

  In addition, providing occasional attribution to hardworking reporters is a courtesy, so they don't see all wikipedia contirbutors as disrespectful near-plagarists. Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

When Regan defeated Mondale, the word "landslide" was used everywhere. I haven't looked at the associated articles, biut I'm sure it's used. Regardless Sullivan and her colleagues are local beat reporters. All of them reported the election results in fairly strong terms. They are the experts in this domain. They know all the players. When multiple reliable sources (and no dissenters) state the same fact, we should treat it as fact. All of the sources go on to say she is virtually guaranteed to win in the general election. It's not opinion when the source is an expert. If they were local columnists, expressing opinions and/or advocating for this or that, then we would need to attribute that opinion. In a region of talking heads, there were a handful doing just that. None of what I read seemed particularly interesting or relevant, so I chose not to use that material. These "invested" commenters were extremely vociferous, and IMO not the sort of sourcing we should use. If anyone wants to, they are free to be bold.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That man from Nantucket wrote:

It's not opinion when the source is an expert.

WP:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view says:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Patricia Sullivan's characterization that Garvey won "easily" is still an opinion, not a fact. Geo Swan (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong, Multiple reliable sources have expressed, in one way or another that Garvey won handily. Give it up or ask for another opinion.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• You have an obligation to read the counter-arguments of those you disagree with. Please make a greater effort to try to understand other contributors. Remember, none of us are infallible. I kknow I am fallible. Even you are fallible.

Did you bother to read the example from WP:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view:

For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

The opninion that "genocide is evil" is much more widely shared than the opinion that Garvey won "easily" -- and yet the policy recommends that that opinion too requires attribution.

Sullivan's opinion remains an opinion, without regard to whether other reporters share her opinion. That other reporters agree with her does not transmute her opinion to a fact. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't personally have a problem with "easily", but if others do, could we not just say that Garvey won with around 55% of the votes cast going to her (assuming Garvey and Gutshall were the only candidates), and leave the reader to decide whether this constitutes an "easy" victory or not? The WaPo story gives numbers according to "unofficial returns," are there official numbers somewhere that could be used as a better source? Chuntuk (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course we could report the numbers, but the sources specifically made a value judgment. If we are to accept that the three secondary sources are qualified to make such a determination, and I don't think anyone is stating otherwise, the article is poorer for not using the judgment. One 55% margin might be "easily won" for one jurisdiction, and it might be a "close call" for another. The sources are qualified to make that determination, not us editors. If the Climate Change article were to simply state the raw data, it is not as helpful as providing sourced interpretation.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• That man from Nantucket, you write: "If we are to accept that the three secondary sources are qualified to make such a determination, and I don't think anyone is stating otherwise, the article is poorer for not using the judgment." It seems you are merely paraphrasing your earlier assertion, "It's not opinion when the source is an expert." I explained why I thought this was a clear lapse from WP:NPOV, which said even an opinion like "genocide is evil" should be attributed, not stated as a fact. Geo Swan (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And your repeating your (baseless) explanation. The article on anthropogenic climate change states that scientific consensus on climate change is that it is real. We don't say 99% of scientists agree climate change is real and leave it to the reader to decide.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you honestly think the handling of attribution to comply with NPOV, in the article on Global warming, is relevant here, could you please be specific as to what those lessons you think we should look for? Climate change is a hot-button topic, like abortion. I would expect it to be a topic where good faith or bad faith newbies erode the article's compliance with policy, so, please supply diffs.

You called my counter-argument "baseless". I cited relevant passages from a key wikidocuments. I suggest when someone cites relevant passages from wikidocuments it is a mistake to call their arguments "baseless". It's insulting, and provocative. The wikidocuments are the basis of my explanation.

I encourage you to try again, and compose a substantive reply. Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• That man from Nantucket, you made assertions about our article on Anthropogenic climate change. We did have an article specifically on Anthropogenic climate change, until it was redirected in 2006. Geo Swan (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard

The Weekly Standard just published a new article profiling Garvey.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Surname last... or surname first...

When I added the first references to this article I populated the {{cite}} templates with surname last. The wikipedia's manual of style is neutral on whether an article's references should name the authors of references in surname last or surname first style. It does however recommend that, when one comes to an article where all the existing references follow one style, new contributors should consider sticking with that style when they create new references.

In my opinion the surname first style is hold-over the days of print. Surname first made it easier to check a list of authors, or references, for a particular name, in the days when a reader couldn't simply tell their computer to search for that particular name. In my opinion, this is a strong reason to abandon surname first style. Another reason? It is patriarchal. It is based on the assumption that both sons and daughters will inherit their father's surname. Another reason? A significant fraction of humanity doesn't follow the European style of surname inheritance.

Recently another contributor took the step of rewriting the references I wrote, to put them into the surname first style. Woah cowboy! The manual of style does not recommend that. On the contrary, it recommends keeping one's hands off compliant, non-broken {{cite}} templates. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't find the Patriarchary argument to have any merit, but rather it to be an appeal to emotion. Nor does the "non-European" angle. This is the English Wikipeida after all. This policy mentioned in WP:COFAQ#ENGLISH, which is basically says "When in Rome...." and can be extrapolated if no other authority prevails. Since this is an American topic, and if there is an American style that is predominant, that should be used.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)