Jump to content

Talk:Daniel J. Caron

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

Edits by User:Frelau and User:HelenOnline

[edit]

There seems to be constructive work on this entry done by User:Frelau and User:HelenOnline to improve WP:BLP. The idea that a BLP can be improved over time, and maintain unbalanced perspectives, does not apply to biographies. This impacts on the biography subjects' reputation, and therefore biographies must be fair at all times.

I am reverting User:HelenOnline modifications in regard to references to the Canadian archival and library community's reaction to budgetary cuts at LAC and to modernizing the business environment at Library and Archives Canada (LAC). This trivial fact may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, such as within the Library and Archives Canada page. --Noisetrash (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on BLP

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Noisetrash (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I be concerned that the only contributions user NoiseTrash has made to Wikipedia have been to police this article, including reverting my own sourced edit? Edsu (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I reached this discussion from the #wikimedia-glam IRC channel.) Two reverts is hardly "policing", I wouldn't discuss accounts for now. However, the edit looked ok to me, so I restored it. I'd expect removal of the information to be discussed here first. --Nemo 21:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above edits are not in line with to improve WP:BLP. The opinions expressed in the news articles impacts on the biography subjects' reputation, and therefore biographies must be fair at all times. I have added a new news reference providing clarifications on the reasons for his departure. --Noisetrash (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, User:NoiseTrash you are reverting my sourced edit. You modified the text to say Caron retired, but the French article you cited claims that he was forced out: "Daniel J. Caron estime, rétrospectivement, avoir été victime d'un « assassinat administratif » nourri, entre autres, par des « accusations douteuses » et par les résistances internes qu'ont fait naître ses plans de modernisation et de numérisation des activités de Bibliothèque et archives Canada (BAC)." The article goes on to pretty clearly say (at least in translation) that he resigned, instead of retiring. In addition, whenever possible English Wikipedia [prefers] English language material. That plus the fact that this is the only article you have edited on Wikipedia leads me to be suspicious of your intent here. I'm going to revert your revert in the hopes that you will let the text stand as is. If you would like to discuss WP:BLP further here in the talk page I would welcome that. Edsu (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frelau (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)I do not know who is policing who here but Caron's bio says he retired from the public service after 32 years of service. What seems to be implied in the article from Le Devoir is that he left because he did not see any possibility to continue working on a modernisation project when the political party in power -for ideological reasons- as well as the communities -for budget cuts and other reasons- did not support him. From what I understand from the BLP, a bio should not be vindictive or carry a debate/disagreement on orientations or other unverified or decontextualized matters. For instance, unless someone wants to make a full analysis of expenses and compare them with current practices, there is no point to bring that type of politics in bios. This type of strategy is used by opponents to damage someone’s reputation. There is not point to quote unverified and use selective data and information.[reply]

Which bio are you referring to when you said he retired? I see that, similar to NoiseTrash, User:Frelau only Wikipedia edits have been to this article about Caron. Something seems very fishy here, or am I being overly paranoid? I think I will submit it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations to get a second opinion, since I do feel like I am policing things at this point. Edsu (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it was expected you would get someone in to have a second opinion. You seem to be closely related to your source which appears to be CLA. The BLP is clear on many aspects that are not respected here. There are many sources referring to retirement of Caron outside of CLA compilation you are using. Official university sources: http://www.enap.ca/enap/2890/Informations_professionnelles.enap?view=fonction&indid=791; https://crihn.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/confc3a9rence-midi-daniel-j-caron.pdf and sources such as http://www.cpsen.ca/past-fairs/opsqf-2014/program-2014/41-public/165-daniel-j-caron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frelau (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those additional references, they are very helpful. Since there is clearly disagreement here about what happened, and conflicting stories, why don't we let the Wikipedia article reflect that rather than reverting each other's edits? I am going to restore the previous text, and will then modify it to reflect the controversy. Edsu (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we have a neutral point of view being expressed by Edsu. User:Frelau and User:NoiseTrash have brought forward sources that demonstrate that he retired from the public service. Controversies on Library and Archives Canada should be contained within the Library and Archives Canada page. WP:BLP maintains that edits containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, should be deleted. I've also requested to have community-wide attention on this BLP. Noisetrash (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, NoiseTrash and Frelau have only ever edited this article on Wikipedia and continue to revert my edits that are backed up by reputable sources. I made an attempt at providing a balanced point of view by presenting both sides, but you reverted that as well. I guess we're going to have to go back and forth like this until somebody intervenes? I hope not. Edsu (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edsu is not providing a neutral perspective, nor is using sources that are reliable. We have asked for assistance on this BLP from the wide community. My previous edits had provided additional information andclarification. I have reverted Edsu's changes.Noisetrash (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to provide a neutral perspective given the controversy that exists, and the sources I have used are reputable. You are making no attempt to do this, and just removing my edits, which is not constructive. Are you really suggesting that CBC News is not credible? My suspicion is that NoiseTrash and Frelau are sock puppet accounts, and I will open an investigation into that and leave the article as is for now. Edsu (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Frelau...that much I'm certain. We seem to share the same concern over the BLP, much like like User:HelenOnline original intent to improve the article. The material you quoted are not founded in verifiable sources, the one from Le Devoir quotes the reasoning why he retired from LAC. That is the credible source. To quote the WP:BLP page "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.". The sources cited are primarily quoting from professional communities disagreeing with his proposed changes at Library and Archives Canada, or from sensationalistic media claims. The BLP is not a vehicle for such claims. I also have a concern that you are an identified member of this professional community. You received an award from the American Library Association (ALA) this year (congrats on that, that's pretty cool). Let's keep this BLP clear of unreliable sourced material that is negative "in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject", as per WP:BLP or material that is "intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced", as per WP:G10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisetrash (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response NoiseTrash, and for the congrats. Yes, I'm a member of the Library Science community in the United States it's true. It's difficult to tell what your perspective is, other than you are very concerned with having information about the circumstances of Caron's resignation/retirement in Wikipedia. I am pleased to hear that you are not also using the Frelau account. I trust that the investigation will say the same thing, and I will have just been overly paranoid. I would still like to reach a compromise with you to include both sides of this story in the Wikipedia article. Since there are sources that indicate he resigned and others saying that he retired, shouldn't the Wikipedia article reflect this? I am not trying to slander Caron but just want to not sugar coat the facts. Does that make sense? Edsu (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to apologize for accusing Frelau and Noisetrash of being sockpuppet accounts. The investigation indicates that the two are unrelated. Even though I don't agree with the removal of my edits I am going to let this lie until someone else wants to weigh in. Edsu (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Summoned here by bot to what might be the most poorly drafted RfC I have ever read. The initiator fails to state any substantive concerns about the article and instead asks whether he should be "concerned" about another editor. Please close out this RfC and ask a specific question about the text. I'm not a mindreader and I shouldn't have to conduct research because you're unclear. Coretheapple (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that was addressed at me please let me know what I need to do. There's no need to read my mind you can read the discussion on the page you are looking at now. Edsu (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's what I'm saying. If you want people to respond to your RfC, you need to state a specific issue. It's not up to people responding to an RfC to attempt to discern what the initiator's problem is. Just trying to do a good turn by pointing this out, as in the discussion above I'm not seeing any uninvolved people responding. Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edsu, Coretheapple could not possibly be more right about this and I suggest you heed his advice on the matter and A) close down the present discussion, B) read the RfC guidelines (particularly the "before starting the process" section) and WP:Writing requests for comment, and then C) either open up another, appropriately formatted RfC with an unambiguous question about the article's content or drop this matter altogether, lest this all WP:Boomerang back upon you. This is not remotely the purpose to which RfC's are meant to be applied nor the manner in which they are meant to be formatted. First off, before launching the RfC, you should have made an attempt at discussion here on this talk page with regard to any content concerns you had; this did not take place. If that discussion had come to a loggerheads and an RfC was genuinely necessary, when filing the RfC, you should have raised an issue about the content, and phrased it as an unambiguous and neutrally-put question, preferably one which presented one or more specific courses of action which the respondents could then endorse, oppose or comment upon. Alternatively, if you had raised the issue here and it had resulted in a non-productive discourse, there are numerous WP:dispute resolution processes that you might have attempted. And if you felt that their behaviour violated crucial behavioural policies and was likely to to continue to do so, you could have brought the matter to WP:ANI or a number of other forums for oversight. But the truth of the matter is, you didn't even come close to due diligence in trying to discuss these matters with the editor in question such as to justify attracting the involvement of others.
In short, RfC's are meant to invite third opinions on clearly defined content disputes, not as a means of saying "Hey, this guy looks suspicious to me, what do you all think?" before you've even engaged with him, in the hopes that others will side with this assessment. I very nearly closed this discussion myself, citing all of the above, but (as I suspect was Core's thinking as well) I want to give you the opportunity to do so yourself. Please either open a new discussion which raises a specific question about content, or drop it and try to raise your concerns with the other editor in a direct and civil manner, and please be sure to familiarize yourself in detail with the RfC process before the next occasion that you open one. Alternatively, define the exact nature of the other user's policy violations and we can discuss whether they warrant administrative oversight of any sort. Actually, since you are currently engaged in discussion with the other party that looks as if it may be proceeding slowly towards some form of compromise solution, there is no harm in allowing it to proceed in this thread, if it suits both of you. I would just caution that starting this sort of discussion ought to be your default approach from the get-go in similar circumstances in the future, rather than proceeding straight from disagreement to edit-warring to RfC. However, if you still want additional third opinions on the content itself, Core's advice stands as your best hope of getting them; open a new thread (or section of this thread) that clearly lays out both of your positions in a neutral manner and then propose different approaches that other editors can either support, oppose, or comment upon. Snow let's rap 01:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Summoned by bot. This is not an appropriate RFC. Edsu, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that you can write anything about a living person as long as you have a source. What you added was a clear BLP violation in my opinion. Please close this RfC and take this content dispute to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you can't reach consensus. Flat Out (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will follow advice provided by Coretheapple, Snow Rise and Flat Out. I have therefore withdrawn the RFC as the community's response has become obvious. Furthermore, I suggest to Edsu and/or Frelau that we close this discussion, as a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS was obtained on the strength of comments received and underlying policy relating to WP:BLP. Noisetrash (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my edits were relating what reputable sources already stated in a neutral and verifiable way. I realize it isn't the most positive thing to say, but is it really the case that Wikipedia can not state negative things about living people, as long as they are properly sourced, and verified? If that were the case Wikipedia would be a very dull place indeed. I will stand down on this edit since everyone else seems to be in agreement that I was violating WP:BLP. If there is something I have to do to "close the RFC" please let me know. Edsu (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daniel J. Caron. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reverted latest changes and added fellow

[edit]

Reverted user contributions by @2607:F2C0:EB6A:40:F9B4:FFFA:81B6:F571 as above mention of Dispute on BLP. Note that Daniel J. Caron retired, as the French article. Noisetrash (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_J._Caron&oldid=1206553207"