Talk:Mike Berlon

NPOV issues

@Boardwalknw8: Regarding the NPOV issues with the page, there are several examples where your sentences are decidedly non-neutral. Firstly, this sentence: Mike Berlon is a long time American politician, political strategist, lawyer and lobbyist whose career spans more than 40 years. This sentence emphasizes his experience, and is definitely not neutral. Secondly, this sentence: He specialized in trial practice and courtroom work handling civil and criminal cases at the State and Federal trial and appellate levels for more than 21 years. In particular, this bit: ... for more than 21 years. Statements that lead with "For over, and more than..., are not neutral. Finally, this: ...a wide variety of issues.... Simply stating "...various issues..." would be sufficient, and would be more neutral. While these are the main outstanding examples, the entire revision is also non-neutral, though not quite as egregiously. Jeb³_{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 18:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

_{Will add diffs if I need to, but can't at this time. Jeb³Talk at me here^{What I've Done} 18:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)}

@Jebcubed: Grammatical points understood. I will attempt to refine the the statements that you referenced above. Will drop "spans more than 40 years", and "more than 21 years" and will state "various issues" rather than "wide variety of issues". Will make those changes tomorrow, can't today. Will also look at other language to tighten as well. Hopefully, this will resolve the matter. Thanks for reaching out with specifics. Boardwalknw8 (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Boardwalknw8

Recent reverts

@Boardwalknw8:: I've reverted your edits again. I'm going to briefly describe some of the issues I see with them.

• Some of your language is slightly promotional or puffy. Phrases such as 'whose career spans more than 40 years', or 'extensive motion practice' just aren't the kind of neutral, encyclopedic phrasing we should be aiming for.
• The sourcing is poor. You used Wikipedia articles as sources several times (see UGC - this is explicitly prohibited), and affiliated sources such as his own personal website.

I'd suggest that you identify better sourcing to support the changes you want to make, and that you attempt to phrase the changes more neutrally. You could perhaps make some suggestions here on the talk page and discuss them with other users. Also courtesy-pinging Jebcubed since they have been involved in this as well. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 18:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boardwalknw8: I appreciate your help. Not sure why all of my edits were reversed. Was lead to believe on other board that this would not be the case by @Fred C.:. I believe that the article was well sourced. I am relatively new to this and will re-edit the page tomorrow with suggestions recommended. Can you please revert the changes back so that I don't have to redo all of the edits from scratch or should I just re-do it? Once again, new to this and am not sure why this has become an issue. Will drop all wikipedia references and add additional hard sources. Already responded to Jebcubed as well.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8

@Boardwalknw8: What I said on the other board is that you needed to discuss the situation on this talk page to develop a consensus about which of your edits, if any, would be accepted into the article. It would probably also help if, rather than doing a major change all at once, you went in smaller pieces—so it's easier to review sources, discuss, and reach a consensus about what to do.

As far as reversing all your edits, what usually happens is that articles go back to how they were before the bold changes while the changes are being discussed. That's what Girth Summit did: they reverted the article back to the status quo ante situation. You may want to review WP:BRD for a model of the situation going on here: you made a bold change, it was diverted, and you (all) now need to discuss the situation.

Finally, as a point of personal privilege, my username is C.Fred, with the C. coming at the start of the name, not the end.

—C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boardwalknw8: I appreciate your help. Sorry about the wrong salutation. Not an experienced communicator in this medium. Will make sure to use C.Fred.... I will edit one section at a time in chunks. Am not sure why there was no additional discussion before it was reverted. Should I just re-do it? Once again, new to this and am not sure why this has become an issue. Will drop all wikipedia references and add additional hard sources. This is all very frustrating. Boardwalknw8 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8

This is the normal process - see WP:BRD - you make a bold change, someone else reverts, and then discussion takes place. The article remains in its original state - from before your edit - until there is agreement. So no, I won't restore your content, but don't worry, you can get it from the article history, and even copy it into your sandbox to edit it further. but I agree with C.Fred, go slow, one edit at a time. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boardwalknw8:

GIRTH SUMMITT: I appreciate your help. As you can see, I'm new to this to I was surprised at the reaction I had earlier to these changes. In fact, I thought "sandbox" is where kids used to play. I was also afraid all the edits was lost. I believe that all of my edits were properly sourced. Do you think you can guide me through the process? What should I do? One small section at a time? And when will I know its OK? The site was revised without any prior warning to me after all of the work. I would appreciate your insight. Boardwalknw8 (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8

Boardwalknw8, earlier you accepted that your sourcing was problematic - now you say you see nothing wrong with it? Read WP:RS, and let me know if anything isn't clear about why you shouldn't use the subject's personal website, or a Wikipedia article, as a source. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boardwalknw8:

GIRTH SUMMITT: Wait. No disrespect intended. I do not believe that my sourcing was "problematic". I never said that. My sources are fine. The criticism was that I used wikipedia as a reference. That was a very small slice of the citations. Not as a solo reference but in addition to others. I get why I shouldn't use wikipedia as a source but the rest of my work is all well documented. So I am concerned, especially because the article may be political in nature, about why my edits have been taken down. I have an issue with all of my edits being removed when none have been apparently significantly checked or sourced. The original article was done in 2010 so there are may updates to be done. There was no attempt by anyone at the beginning of this to explain anything, other than just to undo the edits and threaten me with being blocked. I am more than willing to work with anyone on this but if the editing can be subjectively discarded because of stylistic differences I'm not sure how to proceed. What do you suggest? Boardwalknw8 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)boradwalknw8

@Boardwalknw8: How to proceed is to start a new section and pick out one portion of the article (like a paragraph or section) that you want to change here. Start a new section and describe the edit. (A pattern might be "I want to change X to Y based on source S that I found.) Then other editors will respond and either agree (in which case the edit can be made) or disagree. If there's disagreement, then more discussion needs to take place to find out the objections and see if there's a way around it. Is a better source needed, maybe? Or, does the material have undue weight, cover trivia, not have neutral point of view, or is otherwise unsuitable for addition at all? —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boardwalknw8:

C.Fred Who is the ultimate arbiter of what is permissible on the site? The sources cited were good. But two editors have decided that because of stylistic reasons the site should be revised. But what if we disagree? I would assume that this is not trial by committee and that if a source is cited, then it should be accepted as such and that the modifications should be applied. I practiced law for many years before I retired and know there is always more than one point of view in most every instance. It all comes down to interpretation. All of the objections I have seen from GIRTH SUMMITT and JEBCUBED are stylistic in nature. You can check this out for yourself. Recommending word changes only. How does this ultimately get resolved and who would be in charge of this? Who do you appeal to? Someone has to be the final arbiter. In fact, how do you get a site deleted? I can see why the site can be so cumbersome. Thanks for your help.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)boradwalknw8

Boardwalknw8, there is no final arbiter, content disputes are handled by discussion, hopefully leading to agreement and consensus. The threats to block you were about your trying to force your edits through without discussion, which we call edit warring. I would be happy to engage constructively with you if you follow C.Fred's advice and go through this step by step, discussing specific changes and sources. There is most certainly no political angle to any of this (and if you knew me better, you wouldn't be thinking along those lines). GirthSummit _(blether) 23:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boardwalknw8: There is no "ultimate arbiter", per se. Articles are edited based on consensus. If there's a situation where consensus can't be reached, then there's a process for a request for comment, where more editors are requested to look at the situation. Also, remember that sources should be independent of the subject; WP:Reliable sources has more information on the requirements for sources. Some of the concerns you call stylistic also go back to Wikipedia guidelines like WP:Neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boardwalknw8:

GIRTH SUMMITT: Thanks for your response. As you know, I am new to this process and I appreciate your willingness to help me moving forward. I want to make sure to get it right. I have a question. I started this process because I have a background in law, politics and military history. When I retired I started looking for sites to possibly update or make better. I ran across this one and saw that it had a lot of room for improvement and that it really isn't a proper biography so I thought I'd experiment with it.

While there is a lot to add, I think the threshold questions is whether this article should even be on Wikipedia. I thought about this yesterday. The subject really isn't anyone of significant biographical note, the site apparently has remained unchanged for quite a while and it really offers nothing in the way of real substance. In fact, it's barely sourced. I read the Wikipedia Notability Policy and wonder if the correct choice here wouldn't be to delete the site. Before I start the editing process, I'd like your opinion. Keeping it alive for editing purposes doesn't make much sense to me. Thanks again for your insight. Thoughts?

(UTC)boardwalknw8

Boardwalknw8 I assume this comment is yours - you may want to ensure you log in when editing, as your IP address is revealed above. You might like this to be redacted to protect your privacy?

With regard to the subject's notability, at least one person agrees with you, since it was tagged for a notability concern back in May. I'm not sure personally - having been chairman of the party may be enough to get him over the line, and I'd be surprised if there weren't enough sources about him available even if they're not currently present in the article. You could nominate to AFD to start a deletion discussion, but my gut instinct (without having done a full WP:BEFORE search myself) is that this article would likely be retained. The guidelines to read and think about would be WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN.

Do you mind if I ask you a question that might sound somewhat impertinent? I'm not meaning to cast aspersions on your motives here, but initially you wanted to improve the article and thought that there were good sources, but you got some pushback because your edits were seen as less than neutral; now you're arguing that the subject may not be notable and should perhaps be deleted. Do you have any connection with the subject at all? This is not an accusation of any wrongdoing, just a question.

By the way - please take a look at WP:THREAD for discussion of how to engage in threaded talk page discussions - it helps make it clear who is saying what, and to whom. While you're at it, look at how I have formatted my pings to you (with curly brackets), and check the spelling of my username - if you do thatu , you can notify others that you have responded to them. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boardwalknw8:

GIRTH SUMMITT: Thanks for your response. I am not connected to the subject. I guess my concerns were that even if I somehow made additions to the site, that it would later be determined that this page did not see the suitable requirements of notability. I guess the pushback was because I spent a lot of time on the work and was upset about the pushback on the edits. Instead of engaging me about it, my changes were simply deleted and then I was threatened about it.

I'm interested in contributing something significant to make pages better. But after looking at the entire issue and reviewing the notability policy, this seems like a dead end. This is especially true since many of the references I used come from hard copy publications or print materials that are not on the internet. I'm used to more scholarly footnoting in terms of publications.

I will review your suggestions about talk page discussions. I'm a bit short of time this morning. In a nutshell, after looking at everything it seems that this page should probably be deleted or merged somewhere. Maybe with the Democratic Party of Georgia (if they have a page). I don't want to spend hours an a dead end project. I have other edits that I can make in other areas. Once again, don't want to waste my time or yours. Thanks for the info about IP address as well. I can understand why that could be important.

So-what do you think? I'm inclined to submit it for deletion unless you believe the edits would be worthwhile. Especially if the idea of deletion has come up before. Thank again.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8

Boardwalknw8, hi again. Briefly - I'd be surprised if the subject of this article wasn't notable according to our guidelines, but I'm not a real expert on the sources in this subject area. Note that offline sources are fine - I use offline books as often as I use online sources in the articles that I write - so if the subject is discussed in detail in reliable, independently published hardcopy books or newspapers, then he is definitely notable. If you want to pursue the deletion option, you need to nominate it at AfD - there will be a discussion, to which any editor can contribute an opinion, typically lasting one week but it may drag on if a consensus doesn't emerge. If a consensus emerges that he isn't notable, then an uninvolved admin will close the discussion and delete the article.

You have chosen a particularly difficult article as your first foray into editing. This article is a biography of a living person, it touches on post-1932 American politics, and the subject has been involved in some sort of scandal - all areas where multiple policies and guidelines overlap, and where it is unusually difficult to tread the line and write neutral, objective and policy-compliant prose. Most of the articles I've written are about historic buildings, and people who have long been dead - if military history is an interest of yours, you might be well-advised to just walk away from this and take a look at WP:WikiProject Military History - it's very active, there are lots of great, academic editors working in that arena, and it's a lot less contentious. Your call anyway - cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boardwalknw8:

GIRTH SUMMITT: Thanks for your response. I now see the broader picture and I appreciate your insight. I see your point about the difficulties with the article. I never considered that. I think that right now I'll pass on something with this degree of difficulty. I am going to submit the site for deletion. Frankly, I thought it would be a good "starter" project. Frankly, it's just a shell anyway. Im like your approach about the way you edit. It makes great sense. And I like non contentious...I did enough of that ion my career. Thanks again for all your help. I hope you don't mind if I call on you again in the future.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8

Boardwalknw8, no worries - if I can ever help you, please let me know. Take a quick look at WP:PING, and at how I spell my username - if you need me, let me know! GirthSummit _(blether) 01:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I

Boardwalknw8

GirthSummit _(blether): Thank you very much. There is a steep learning curve here and I appreciate your kindness in helping me. Its like learning a completely new language. The military history projects look exciting. Never realized what a hornet's nest politics was nor expected the reactions I received. Have a great and happy Holiday Season. I will take you up your office of help. I want to learn to do this right.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8