Talk:Eva K. Lee

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Objectivity questioned

This article tries to whitewash the federal charges to which Dr. Lee pled guilty, and imply that the government and the University of Georgia are wrong to seek to punish her for her conduct. This section was labeled "Personal life", making it seem irrelevant to her work, but when a scientist lies or steals someone's signature, they sacrifice credibility. It then becomes necessary to question everything they do.

A reverted attempt to improve the objectivity

I've tried improving the objectivity, but my attempts were both reverted. My last attempt was [1]. I've moved the discussion from User_talk:David_Eppstein.

Could you tell me what part of my edit was 'unduly negative'? I put much research time in the edit and tried to be factual. Moonrakercrystal (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think putting CONVICTED FELON as literally the first thing about her, taking purely the prosecution's line for what she was accused of doing, and removing all description of her side of the case, in a case where she took a plea bargain, is unduly negative? Perhaps you were also unaware that basing content of biographies of living people on court case documents rather than secondary sources is explicitly forbidden? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything wrong with putting convicted felon in the first line. That's the same as in the article about Paul_Manafort, which is under much more scrutiny.

I was not aware of the policy on using court documents and primary source data, thank you for pointing me in that direction. I'll slightly rephrase the changes, and also restructure it to include her defense. Moonrakercrystal (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about you NOT focus the article on this incident. It is a small part of what she is known for. It should not be the focus of the article. Pointing to other articles on highly charged political topics does not give me confidence in your edits, especially as this appears to be the only topic you have edited here. Biographies of living people are a minefield for new editors. We have many strict rules about how they should be written. Find something less controversial to edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the section is poorly structured. It's been more than a year since someone (not me) questioned the objectivity of that section (Talk:Eva_K._Lee), but noone has made any corrections. The section was written by a user who appears to have only edited that specific page. The lines on her defense are a carbon copy from court filings (document 9 of the case) and cannot be found elsewhere.

Her conviction is not the focus of the article as it's all the way at the bottom. Moonrakercrystal (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently too detailed and too consistently takes her side of the story. Rewriting it to be even more detailed and even more consistently taking the other side of the story is not an improvement. Proper editing of biographies of living people requires care and experience with Wikipedia policies. Why do you want to do this, as your first edit to Wikipedia? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding structure, including a summary, is a good way of managing the level of detail. I've made sure each of my additions is supported by secondary sources, and that court documents are only referenced so readers can find additional information. The background information is still mostly from Special:Contributions/Dashuaana2020 without any references. They are in part corroborated by court filings.

I've put in the time to read about the case and wanted to improve wikipedia. Please read my latest edit. Moonrakercrystal (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents are UNACCEPTABLE AS REFERENCES IN ANY FORM on a biography of a living person. As I said above, Wikipedia is very strict about such biographies. They are not a good choice of what to edit for a starting Wikipedia editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons I found "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". Why do you think no reference to court documents can be made at all? Moonrakercrystal (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Do not use" do you find difficult to understand? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is not to use court records "to support assertions about a living person". As indicated, I've made sure each of my additions is supported by secondary sources, and that court documents are only referenced so readers can find additional information. I do not see how that guideline is violated. Moonrakercrystal (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything written in an article about a living person is an assertion about a living person. You cannot wiggle out of this BLP violation by claiming you're really writing about something other than the person the article is about. Stop or you will get blocked from editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say the edit would have been acceptable if the references to court documents were left out? Moonrakercrystal (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Find something less controversial to edit", from much earlier in this thread, do you find difficult to understand? You are acting like someone with an agenda. That is not a good frame of mind in which to make a worthwhile contribution to the project. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been good advice before I started this endeavor, but now I've already put in the effort. Could you perhaps take my edit as a starting point and make it adhere to the policy? Moonrakercrystal (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime some of the puffery was removed by JayBeeEll, a different and I think more neutrally worded attempt was made by 666hopedieslast to put the criminal case in the lead, and it was removed again by ScottishFinnishRadish. You will note that I didn't interfere with any of this, because I don't think any of those edits were WP:BLP problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

The main two relevant policies here are those on biographies on living people and on maintaining a neutral POV. Using court documents to cite BLP information is a violation of the first policy, full stop. There do exist secondary sources (e.g., [2], [3], [4]) which talk about her conviction, but they are mostly sympathetic--surprisingly so, actually, to someone who's never heard of her (me). Also, academics/researchers don't tend to get much coverage in mainstream newspapers for their day-to-day work; dishonesty is far more exciting to readers, and editorial discretion is therefore advisable. In particular, calling her a convicted felon in the lead sentence, is not neutral, nor is this edit by Moonrakercrystal. The comparison to Paul Manafort is totally bogus, for reasons I hopefully need not spell out. Where the article falls short is its structure; the separation between "Career", "Personal", etc. is unclear. A single heading "Career" and subheadings, followed by "Honors" and maybe "Personal life", would be preferable, and would probably address concerns of misconduct being "buried" at the end. I agree that Moonrakercrystal ought to edit other articles and gain experience before adding highly charged information into a BLP. Ovinus (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]