Jump to content

Talk:Craig Cheffins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The Reflector

I have added a reference to a story that ran in MRC's student paper The Reflector. One editor purged the paragraph suggesting it was problematic - for whom exactly? It states the students allegations, and also that this was denied by the college. Whatever one's position, historical revisionism is almost as unnecessary as stating that a student newspaper as a source is not qualified for a BLP. BLP's do not need to be all-flattering, but must reflect objective balance. PositiveSpin (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but WP:BLP, requires an extra high standard. A student newspaper isn't adequate. If a publication like the Calgary Herald covered it, than it would be worthy. --Rob (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the source is reliable (although I don't pretend to speak for the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this). I'm mildly concerned about the WP:WEIGHT implications (this was evidently a relatively minor incident, but occupies a large portion of the article), although those would be better addressed by expanding the article, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the problem is more that the article remains a stub and should be expanded. Instead of editing out a paragraph, maybe Rob could add detail to Cheffins political career CV. This would address the WP:WEIGHT issue, while retaining the use of a credible source. PositiveSpin (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the worst things Wikipedia can do is take a rumor known by a limited group (a few students here) and then spread it globally. One sentence, or many paragraphs, makes little difference. We've taken a rumor started by a couple students, spread by some fellow students on the student newspaper, and made it globally available, permanently. I have no interest in padding the article with a bunch of nice stuff, to make it all "balanced". As far as I know, Cheffins conduct with students, is an issue that only concerns him, his ex-students, and ex-employer. There's no indication anybody independent outside the MRC community took notice. Hence, even if the material was 100% true, it's still not encyclopedic. I don't want students using Wikipedia to gripe about their teachers. Cheffins has recceived lots of mainstream press attention. So, if this story is notable, let's see who noted it. --Rob (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed be a rumour if innuendo floated around as faceless talk. However, the credible article by a credible campus journalist at a credible campus newspaper interviewed students whose names and photos appeared on the record. Whether or not so-called mainstream press picked up on it isn't the point - I agree with Sarcasticidealist that the source itself is reliable. I would argue that the 'student newspaper' does not editorially reflect student opinion but writes balanced, researched articles like any other news source. PositiveSpin (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - the new edits seem to solve the WP:WEIGHT issue. However, I had to change the inference that college officials 'found the claims to be baseless'. This is not what the article states. Only one official who worked with Cheffins is actually quoted, and she 'suggested' a reason for the allegations and is emphatic that she knew of no lapse in work or any complaints. It doesn't appear that there was an investigation and a conclusion reached. Perhaps the only way to be fully encyclopedic is to have the names of the students of record, but I'll leave that to another editor. PositiveSpin (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, my wording was very poor. Good wording requires good sources. If the story was picked up by main stream press, we could find if other media found flaws in it, or if they confirmed it. For instance you said "It doesn't appear that there was an investigation and a conclusion reached". Well, that's a very simple thing for a reporter to get a definitive answer about. But we don't know. It would be straightforward for reporters to get more answers from officials. We have the start of the story, but not the end. Do a 100 year test: 100 years from now who sat in the legislature will remain notable and signficant. Who thought they didn't get enough help at college, won't be. I find it frustrating that OFFICE&OTRS actions repeatedly remove claims with better sourcing, yet this stays. Also, on thinking about it, I would strongly oppose naming the students. Since there's a claim they're lying, naming them, could constitute defamation. There's been no follow-up in the media with those students, so again, there'd be no balance. BTW, is there a way we can determine this story wasn't retracted, since it's no longer live (this is just a question, as I honestly don't know, and realize it's common for stories to go off-line, while being kept)? --Rob (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, you really are thinking ahead - 100 years :) Since we aren't supposed to be doing independent research, I can only comment via this page as to what I've discovered by calling the MRC student paper re: the specific article quoted. They stand by the story. There is a problem with their website, but soon it will be back online. The only elaboration is that 1) the students stuck by their allegations, 2) there were more than just the two students but none other would go on the record, and 2) there was no investigation by Cheffins employer since the students did not make a formal complaint to his superiors - the official merely reacted to the journalist. I think the paragraph should stand, at least for awhile, to see if anything else that is credible surfaces. I would agree with you that the students names should remain off, though their names together with their statements makes it newsworthy, at least in my opinion. PositiveSpin (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official said the office was not left unattended, which is a clear statement that his job performance was not an issue to his superiors. Of course there was no "official investigation," because nobody wanted to actually make an official complaint. You don't make some nebulous allegation and leave it hanging like that if you want to be taken seriously. FCYTravis (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with FCYTravis. If this is in dispute, though, let's just mimic the wording in the article, re: not left unattended. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more this is battled over, the more I believe it should just be gone. This is not an encyclopedic incident. It's two students making an entirely unverified complaint who have offered no evidence to support their claims. All the evidence - performance reviews, co-worker/supervisor statements, the fact that all the other students he worked with haven't complained - says this is nonsense. This is a minor figure in history, and there's going to have to be something more there than this to justify it being in a Wikipedia biographical capsule. FCYTravis (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not to be disrespectful FCYTravis, but editors were working this out & I don't believe there was a dispute. You seem to be focusing on Cheffins, whereas I am focusing on the article in question about Cheffins. You can no more reach a conclusion that the students made an unverified complaint than we can verify that Cheffins worked diligently. All we have to go on is the article itself and the quotes therein. There doesn't appear to be a need to quote a department chair who didn't work with Cheffins, especially in light of WP:WEIGHT. All that should be mentioned is that two students put the allegations out there, and Cheffins and one official responded. You have already reached a conclusion that something at a reliable source is 'nonsense', and that would tend to add a little PV spin... PositiveSpin (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I earlier expressed my concerns that, while I consider the source to be reliable, including this incident in an article this short raises issues of weight. While I on balance support the inclusion of the incident, I think that it needs to be mitigated with whatever balancing information is available. I think, given that the source reported the suggestion of political motivation, that its inclusion here is appropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasticidealist, I think your edit works very well. Thanks for that. PositiveSpin (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Craig Cheffins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Craig_Cheffins&oldid=1200815417"