Talk:Paul S. Farmer

Self-promotion

This appears to be little more than a Wikipedia-based CV to advertise the subject's talents. I note from below that it has already been severely pruned by one editor. I shudder to think what it must have read like before (don't have the time to trawl back). I really do wonder if this person really is as notable as he seems to imagine he is. Perhaps Warhol's dictum should be amended to "in the future everyone will have their own Wikipedia page"... Twizzlemas (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I have added back the template for blatant Wikipedia:Conflict of interest by User:Paul Stephen Farmer/Talk. Acabashi (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Further references to substantiate facts and more qualified statements have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I fully concur with speedy delete on this one. I've been watching it closely for months to see if the editor (apparently the man himself) improves it regarding viable serious references and information of weight. Of course speedy delete might be declined through all the (self-interested) work that has gone into it - if it is declined then AfD would be appropriate. Acabashi (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Tightening up

Paul, I think you've done a really good job tightening up the Introduction and the Career sections and that's the way to proceed with the rest. Some of the phrasing is still discursive in a way that, to me, obscures the essence of what I think you're aiming to say. For example, the reference to the two Holland Park students doesn't get across the point that I think you're making that Holland Park was, if not unique, very unusual in its diverse intake, with pupils from very different backgrounds and very different interests. So HP was a model environment for looking at the role of curriculum development in the context of wider educational and social issues (and of course music was a subject area where the issues were particularly highlighted). That doesn't come across in the phraseology (and of course a relevant reference would be needed to show the verifiability of what I've just said off the top of my head).

A one sentence description of Holland Park and later one of Dick Sheppard would be useful. Internal links are useful to someone who's wanting to pursue the subject in depth but brief descriptions are helpful to the reader who needs to be able to understand the context without going wider afield.

You've done a lot to assemble the references and reviews that confirm the notability of the publications. However the reviews don't need to be included in the article itself, the fact that they're there in the reference should be enough to allow judgment of notability. Although a really exceptional (and of course warranted) comparison may be worth including, the type of review comment that it's more useful to quote is one that sums up what the subject of the review has achieved informatively, more authoritatively or more succinctly than might otherwise be possible in the article.

I wouldn't want to put down mention of the council work, which is the sort of "unsung" or at least "very quietly sung" stuff that I personally think Wikipedia is prone to disregard (I disagree very strongly with WP's rejection of UK Honours system recognition as an indicator of notability), but cutting out most of the lower level interest stuff has made it easier to appreciate the significance of the music and general education information - thanks! Opbeith (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re the introduction, how about adding date and place of birth? Opbeith (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort on this Opbeith: very helpful and much appreciated. I shall work on your thoughts this week. User Paul Stephen Farmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.189.27 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Entry now largely completed for further comment/advice or comment on deletionUser:Paul Stephen Farmer 15.30 7 June 2011

Paul, you seem to have the general idea of how to revise the material appropriately. I've taken the liberty of rephrasing your sentence describing how the exam came to be developed, replacing the narrative of your personal experience with a more detached phrasing that retains the important information. There are still a few other sections of text where you could do the same thing, but overall the article is a lot more coherent now. Opbeith (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone object to my removing the COI preface? User:Paul Stephen Farmer July 2011

I'm not an administrator and I don't know what the situation is regarding a Conflict of Interest flag. As far as I'm concerned there's no major issue about neutrality, just a couple of phrases that sound a little bit on the "familiar" side. You could ask User talk:Moonriddengirl to give an opinion since she's familiar with the article and about as objective a person as you'll come across at Wikipedia. Opbeith (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I object to you removing a COI notice from an article about yourself that you created entirely by yourself. I find it somewhat bemusing that you would even suggest it. The COI template is there to alert users of this encyclopedia that you wrote this article about yourself by yourself and must be viewed in that light. Has Opbeith done extensive research to show that the uncited material is accurate, or that any of the article is truly notable, or that Mr Farmer hasn't chosen to leave out the "bad" bits? WP:COI says It is not recommended that you write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article.. The only reason Mr Farmer has gotten noticed is because of a COI conflict on WP, and for that reason the bio is a bit suspect and the COI notice should certainly remain. Weakopedia (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As a further note, this article was nominated for deletion during a discussion that ended only a month ago, the result of which was 4/3 in favour of retaining the article - a weak keep of ever I saw one, and since there have been limited edits by anyone other than the subject since then (and since the COI notice was first placed, deleted by Paul, and replaced again) the conditions for having the COI notice have not changed enough to warrant its removal. Weakopedia (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That description "a weak keep if ever I saw one" is a tendentious comment if ever I saw one. The central notability point of Paul Farmer's publications was researched and details confirmed by Moonridden Girl and others and I myself have researched and confirmed the references to music curriculum innovation and the parliamentary references. Your outrage suggests you think I needed to add my explicit certification. You could either have read between the lines of my comments or might even have bothered to do a little (very undemanding, I found it) checking of your own.

Although it's Paul who has made many of the edits here, he's done so in response to suggestions by others who highlighted areas where overall balance, referencing and significance needed dealing with. Much of the editing was left to Paul after he readily acknowledged the substantial flaws in the original article that was created by him as a novice to Wikipedia and it's clear to me that the changes he's made have demonstrated his honest intent.

The problem with a COI notice is that it goes beyond warning the reader of a potential conflict of interest, the wording suggests that there are problems with the reliability of the content. Paul has done quite a lot of work to make the article conform to Wikipedia requirements and it was not unreasonable for him to ask (as you might have noted he did, how else do you suggest he approach the issue?) whether the flag could be removed. Opbeith (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your rather blatant attempt to personalise this debate by repeatedly criticising my motives for what was a simple comment really puts you in the same box as Mr Farmer as far as how much reliability one might ascribe to your ability to interpret site guidleines. Maybe I'll hang on for the opinion of anyone who isn't involved and who might be at least a little objective. Weakopedia (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"repeatedly criticising my motives for what was a simple comment"? Opbeith (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's important to remember that creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged, but explicitly not forbidden. The community has never reached consensus for banning the practice altogether. It's also important to remember that new contributors are very unlikely to be aware of even the recommendations against it at the time they run afoul of the recommendation. The purpose of {{coi}} is to invite review where there is reason to suspect problems. After review (when a neutral party is satisfied), it should be removed. As the COI guideline notes, "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to."
  
  There are a few issues I see in the article. For instance, criticism was sourced to Facebook; I've removed this, as it violates our WP:BLP policy. I also removed some text from the advertisements ("copies of which teachers were said (in the hype of its publicity) to be 'clamoring for'") and (while I appreciate the honesty) the assessment that the "follow up" was a flop, since so far as I can tell, this is "original research".
  
  Most of the remaining concerns I see with the article can be attributed to "original research." While this may be confusing to article authors when they also happen to be the article subject's, we cannot include information on Wikipedia that can't be verified to a reliable sources. Where can we read, for instance, that Mr. Farmer attended Chigwell School? I don't see this even on his website. (If it's not important enough to be mentioned on the official biography, it's quite probably not important enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia...and if we can't source it, it shouldn't be.) It should be easy enough for Mr. Farmer to add this to his official biography if it seems important enough to him. While we cannot use a subject's own biography to source controversial or important facts about him, we can certainly use it to fill in details such as the primary school he attended.
  
  Since I do not see any neutrality concerns, I would myself support removing the {{coi}} tag and replacing it with a more specific one--{{inline}} or {{Original research}}--pending the placement of proper references for all the content. If anyone disagrees, we can neutrally invite feedback from fresh reviewers at WP:COIN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded. I have added quite a number of new references and taken Moonriddengirl's advice re changing the tag. Please let me know if any further statements in the article require verification or references. User:Paul Stephen Farmer August 7th 2011

I think its a shame this article has been edited so much. I would have liked to see more about the subject's recent political activities, and to that end I have added the brief references to the controversies of his period as Arts/Culture cabinet member. Also, wasn't he a Suffolk County Councillor as recently as 2009 but resigned? I would like to see a more honest/rounded picture of his part in local politics. I shall keep an eye with interest and reserve the right to add more if he does not --Errater (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have exhausted references, as far as I can tell. What else do I have to do to remove the original research tag, and can I just do it myself? --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What you could, and certainly should, do is just go away. Wikipedia is not your personal autobiography. Weakopedia (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Apart from being unnecessarily impolite, that doesn't answer my questions. I have added negative references and included further controversy, as suggested and since Moonriddengirl agreed there were "no neutrality concerns". Apart from going away how can I improve this article? --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Weakopedia what we could, and certainly should, do is never tell a good faith contributor "What you could, and certainly should, do is just go away". It is not against policy for people to work on articles about themselves, even if it is strongly discouraged. Having created an article unaware of this issue (and not the first to fall afoul of it), Mr. Farmer has been working hard with the community to attempt to make sure the article meets standards. Wikipedia:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest notes the importance of civility, which is, of course, mandated by policy anyway.

Mr. Farmer, my general recommendation in these cases is to bring the article for neutral review by uninvolved editors at an appropriate noticeboard--given the return of the "conflict of interest" tag, I will ask the volunteers at the conflict of interest noticeboard to review the material to see if they believe that the "original research" tag and the "conflict of interest" tag are warranted. These tags are not meant to be applied punitively, but only if there are present concerns about issues, and regardless of your involvement in the history of developing this article should not be here unless there are present concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have listed the matter for review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Moonriddengirl. I keep searching for refs to substantiate claims and am trying to re-balance where possible. Any specific problems I will address if I can. Having started all this off I am keen not to lose all the work, not just of me, but others who have kindly helped.--Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr Farmer, I'm sorry for Weakopedia's reaction. Patrolling new pages and possible autobiographies can get frustrating very quickly so I understand his reaction but it's not called for. I'd be happy to help assess the neutrality of the article whenever you want. OlYeller^Talktome 12:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Pioneer

Can we really claim "a pioneer in the use of pop music in school music education" with only one reference? I won't reapply the COI tag but that claim certainly jumps out at me. OlYeller^Talktome 12:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The first reference is actually three - should I separate them? Then refs 6-12 support the claim. Your input is most welcome.--Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know, but I'm pleased to see more controversy and therefore balance--Errater (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

One cool thing about WP is that it make using multiple references, multiple times, easy. If the reference is named, you can easily use it multiple times throughout the content and it will show up one time in the reference section. If the six references support the claim, they can all be used (although 3-4 is usually enough assuming they're reliable and independent). You can find more info about it at WP:NAMEDREFS. I can help if you need it. OlYeller^Talktome 22:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed pioneer from the first sentence. Per WP:MOSBEGIN and the section beneath, the opening sentence should be neutral and simple. SmartSE (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Major edit

Wow Drmies, you certainly know how to edit! Apart from citations requested, is there anything else you'd like to see included or added? --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I guess. I don't know what to say: without any references that I have access to, I cannot accept the "pioneer" part. Likewise, the sourcing for the claims to fame re: music books is poor, in my opinion. The AfD was closed as keep, but this still strikes me as a resume into which every possible fact, related or unrelated, has/had been poured to beef it up--if you'll pardon my French. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• BTW, I wouldn't call that a major edit--as far as I'm concerned, it was cleanup. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine that this is a natural result of conflicting recommendations on Wikipedia. The article when first created was, of course, unacceptable under Wikipedia's policies (unsourced and a fair amount of original research), but really the kind of thing that somebody not knowing local rules might come up with in an effort to create a neutral article. Told he must provide references, Mr. Farmer did. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's exactly right - after its initial creation, I BLPProdded it. PSF has been very responsive to requests. LadyofShalott 13:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I did some copy edits on the article - adding infobox and carefully changing some wording - but due to time limitations without reading references, so if anything is inaccurately represented, hopefully corrections will be made by someone more informed. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks all for continued patience, help and advice --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This piece is getting smaller and smaller - soon there won't be anything left (hooray I hear some shout)!--Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not a hoorayer by choice. I still have serious doubts about notability, and I agree with the cn tags (I didn't place all of them). While I appreciate Mr. Farmer's understanding and cooperation, some of the references added didn't pass muster, and many of them were incomplete or really simply weren't proper references. This, for instance, is a roundabout way to bring back in non-neutral wording removed from said introduction by other editors. And Mr. Farmer, you can't fault me for removing, for instance, information about the school that doesn't pertain to the subject of this article--if the subject is to be given credit for school accomplishments, then the sources should bear that out, but they didn't. Whether there will be anything left is an open question: it is not inconceivable that someone will put this up for deletion in the future. My thanks to the Lady and to MRG for weighing in, and I wish Mr. Farmer a great weekend. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments and concerns

There are still major problems with this article stemming from it being written as an autobiography. For something to be included in the article, we must have reliable secondary sources to back up the information. As the subject has written some of it from his own personal knowledge and AFAICT there are no other sources which can be used, much of it should be deleted - for example the entire education section. Another problem we have is that many of the sources (e.g. those listed under ref 1) are only available to the subject, which makes it difficult for other editors to know which parts of the text are properly referenced and which are based on personal knowledge.

Finally, close inspection of the referencing reveals that many are not actually backing up the text at all. For example:

Out of this course emerged the first classroom textbook in pop music, Pop Workbook, co-written by Farmer and Tony Attwood⁸ with a first publication in 1978 and reprints in 1979 and 1982. Farmer and Attwood produced a follow-up to this, Football Workbook, but its sales were very poor by comparison.⁹ Alongside Holland Park's 4th/5th year course in pop music, similar but broader modules for 11-14 year olds were developed by Farmer, which were later published as the Longman Music Topics.¹⁰

Is sourced to 8 9 and 10 which merely prove that the books exist, but nothing about it being "the first classroom textbook in pop music" that "sales were very poor by comparison" or that "similar but broader modules for 11-14 year olds were developed by Farmer". As a result this entire section (and probably others) fails verification entirely and should be removed. Shall I go ahead and be bold or hold my horses? SmartSE (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• sorry to interrupt but at least the first two sources in ref 1 will be available in libraries or simply back numbers --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I believe the burden of proof being demanded of me is rather high, I am trying hard to keep up with the demands being made (witness my part tongue-in-cheek MA certificate jpg). There has been a huge cull of unprovable facts, which does beg the question "if you can't prove it is it wrong to include it?" I will continue trying to improve the piece, but sometimes it feels like running to stand still. Where have all the sympathetic editors gone?! --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Farmer, I'm afraid that this is the way working on any Wikipedia articles goes. We used to have in our footer a warning that anything anybody writes here may be "mercilessly edited". That was softened to avoid scaring people off, but it is true. We try to keep our tempers while doing so, but the fact that this isn't easy is demonstrated by how many user guidelines we've written reminding people to keep their tempers. (Just to name a few, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, Wikipedia:An uncivil environment is a poor environment, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons.) One of the reasons that editing on an article related to you is strongly discouraged is that it is hard to be dispassionate when the somewhat brutal process is applied to you or to a subject you hold dear. (You should see the back and forth we sometimes go through getting articles to "featured" status for the front page. A lot of virtual blood is shed. :))

You ask, "If you can't prove it is it wrong to include it?" The answer to this, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is yes. We are a tertiary source, and one of our three core content policies is Wikipedia:Verifiability. We are all forbidden to include information that cannot be proved. This is also discussed in a second core content policy: Wikipedia:No original research. Two-thirds of our three content policies are about how everything we include must reflect what has been reliably published somewhere else. :) (The third requires neutrality.)

That said, some of the information in the article, such as your education, could actually be sourced to your personal website. While you cannot use a personal webpage to substantiate anything related to your notability (not for positive critical reception, for instance, or historical significance), we would certainly take your word for it on your education. You can read more about what kinds of information can be sourced from your personal website at WP:ABOUTSELF. If you aren't sure if your biography on your website can be used to source a fact, you can certainly ask here. You will get opinions, and most people will even provide them politely.  :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and kind advice MRG --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That is one interpretation, but there is of course another. Mr Farmer, of your 300 or so edits to this encyclopedia, yours have all been about yourself, which makes you an SPA - "someone whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles". Although the guideline says that "many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest", since your interest is entirely yourself (you have been editing this article since February, after you added yourself to various other pages) you are very much in danger of appearing to fall within the second category, the "significant number (who) appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy".

"The community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject", but they didn't mean knowledgeable about themselves alone when they said it. Mr Farmer, you are no longer a new editor, just one with a narrow enough purpose to mean you have little experience of the encyclopedia overall, so the courtesy afforded new users you cannot continue to expect.

Smartse has pointed to some of the many issues with this article - which all stem from the "throw enough mud and see how much will stick" approach of adding as much detail as possible, however unimportant or unverifiable. You seem to think that the burden of proof required for you is rather high, but it is no higher than for any other Wikipedian, just that they aren't writing exclusively about themselves so probably don't take it all so personally.

Your question "if you can't prove it is it wrong to include it?" really shows that, despite your nine months and 300-plus edits on this encyclopedia, you still do not necessarily grasp its purpose. It is unsurprising then that people keep coming up with flaws in the article, and for as long as your Wikipedia career revolves around making yourself look whatever you are trying to make yourself look like your edits will be scrutinised more than others, and quite fairly so.

My previous advice still stands - it is long past the time where you might start considering other interests on or outside of Wikipedia. If anyone else is interested they will edit the article. If not then it was all a waste of time in the first place. Notability does not spring from having a Wikipedia article.

Oh, and before you start adding to your personal website, let me tell you that despite MRGs advice it is not a fast-track to getting new info into this article. The guideline she provided was not intended to cover SPAs with a conflict of interest writing articles about themselves. And as a final point, interrupting other peoples talkpage comments really makes for an unreadable and difficult to reply to conversation, so I have replaced your comment. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I plead guilty as charged Weakopedia, but there are other ways of looking at my sins. 300+ edits (is it really that many - I haven't counted) partly because I have been asked to make so many changes, and then often been asked to change them back again; partly because I have made so many mistakes I needed to correct; partly because I have so so wanted to get it right. I think I have learned a lot the hard way in the past few days, especially from you, Drmies and SmartSE. Some editors have been kind enough to correct my technical errors, for which I'm grateful. I haven't actually spent from February on this (I do have a busy life even if I have reduced my workload). I have simply kept an occasional eye on the piece, and joined in again when someone has surprised me with a new version.

I will try hard and resist the temptation to run in order to stand still. Yesterday I spent the whole day doing that, which is daft. One mistake I made when I first registered was to use my own name - which shows how green I was! I think this may make an SPA look worse than if using a pseudonym. Having done that I stuck to it with this article. I think in future I shall go under cover, and that may ensure I spread my words rather wider than I have done.

Thank you for all your efforts, even if I didn't like all of them at the time! --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The "guideline" I provided is a policy. :) There is a difference. WP:SPA, for example, is an "essay", and not a guideline. It's good to know the difference between these, as the recommendation regarding choosing a username that does not reveal your affiliation is not in any way official; Wikipedia:COI#Declaring an interest is the actual guideline here. Identifying yourself was the right thing to do, whether through your username (as you did) or simply a frank admission. You have been completely honest about your identity. In return, you should be able to expect civil and cordial treatment, as is recommended in the SPA essay, the COI guideline and the civility policy. While we do particularly emphasize the need to treat newcomers well, the courtesy afforded new users does not expire; as policy says, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect."

That said, once the article has become neutral and acceptable and so long as it does not bear tags that request repair with which you may be able to assist, your best bet is likely to shift into maintenance mode in accordance with Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial edits and the essay Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance. Other important material for you to read would be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and WP:BIOSELF. Articles are never locked, and you may find that your article stands for long periods of time without changing or that it is completely rewritten. Both of these are perfectly normal parts of article development on Wikipedia. In the latter, if you disagree with the way it is rewritten, the links I've provided will give you avenues to express that disagreement. You may also find the article occasionally vandalized. Although we have a really dedicated group of volunteers who try to watch for and repair that kind of thing swiftly, sometimes such edits do pass, and you are always welcome to remove that kind of thing.

You are also welcome to contribute to other articles. We have quite a few that could use assistance, and there have been contributors before you who have started by working on articles closely related to them and found pleasure in moving beyond into general contribution. You are not the first (potential) Wikipedian to inadvertently fall afoul of WP:Autobiography, though I won't name names. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(excuse lengthy discourse, I'll go away again after this) Paul, using your own name signalled your good faith. You weren't trying to hide what you were doing, you were simply contributing information you thought was important based on personal knowledge and experience. That shouldn't be a reason for feeling you have to "go underground" (whatever you mean by that, the implications aren't clear).

What Wikipedia is supposed to be about is access for all so that individuals can contribute the information they know exists and think would be useful to other people. That's presumably what motivated us in the past to contribute. The point of referencing and notability is to ensure reliability of that information as realistically as possible and to prevent abuse.

Having lived through the period when English schools were struggling to adapt to the real world lives of students, I had no doubt that the information about Paul's introduction of a contemporary music curriculum at a school as high-profile as Holland Park was significant and worth including. I'm not particularly bothered that Paul wasn't writing about anything else or that you originally included detail that was fairly trivial. That can be sorted over time, there was little that demanded urgent attention. I was glad to have the article's content as a whole available in Wikipedia rather than not, and that's the basic point.

The admirable aim of trying to ensure that Wikipedia is as reliable as possible seems to be evolving into an aspiration to satisfy the academicians and provide Wikipedia with an identity as a quality-controlled brand. The insistence that everything on Wikipedia must be referenced down to the last detail and every detail must be significant is opting for Gruyeropedia for the dedicated information scientist rather than Cornucopedia for the interested browser as well as the motivated researcher.

The aspiration for Wikipedia to become Academopedia (or at least a brand like Britannica) would be fine if that is what Wikipedia's contributors believe it should be. The academic model seems to be sustainable and able to self-renewal through its recruiting system and perhaps that's how Wikipedia now sees itself forced to evolve in response to the decline in random self-recruitment. Enrolling motivated, well disciplined university students who feel at home in the environment may well be a more reliable recruitment model than relying on less "amenable" lay contributors wanting to do their own thing.

But then Wikipedia Foundation should be honest about it. It should acknowledge that the notion of universal contribution on an equitable basis is effectively being abandoned. And it should be proactive in acknowledging and dealing with the systematic biases, distortions and other imperfections that in practice are endemic to a dogmatising structure. It should warn off the well-meaning amateur hoping to contribute potentially useful information before they get an incomprehensible and often inconsistent rulebook thrown at them. And the foolhardy should be made aware that this is an environment in which the nurturing process is as liable to mean having the bowels opened up as it is being proffered a spoon.

My own involvement in some "red in tooth and claw" areas of Wikipedia has left me undeterred by the violence and duplicity of quite a lot of the routine quality control that goes on here, I'm not an unprepared newcomer. It's just the decision to waste effort elsewhere that's led me to opt out. I'm sticking my oar in here now because I feel an obligation to support the efforts of the people like Moonriddengirl who are still trying to demonstrate that an inclusive/supportive model can be achieved without sacrificing any fundamental principles of integrity.

Although I still disagree with MRG about the appropriate extent of respect for copyright, it's her patience and willingness to explain rather than demand that's reconciled me to the pragmatic need to respect rules that sometimes verge on the exploitatively nonsensical. I've never been in doubt that she had a clear overview of the wider purpose at the same time that she was being painstaking over detail. Authority is different from authoritarianism.

Music education within the English secondary system in the early 1970s was at a similar crossroads to Wikipedia. Paul Farmer's pioneering effort at Holland Park strikes me as embodying the important effort being made at that time to come to terms with the needs of a curriculum's wider rather than narrower constituency. Wikipedia seems now to be moving, with purposeful vehemence at times, in the direction of narrowing its constituency.

Another editor I have great respect for (whom I won't name in case my memory misrepresents him) suggested something along the lines that that a reasonable initial guide to notability was someone's wish to find information on the subject at Wikipedia. Personally I'm glad Paul's GCSE curriculum work ended up at Wikipedia for me to find. I'm quite happy to have it encapsulated in a contextualising narrative as long as that narrative isn't abusive. What concerns me more is how driving away even narrowly focused contributors is liable to deprive me of interesting/useful information. Within the framework of an overall commitment to reliability I can live with "caveat emptor". Opbeith (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm humbled by this kind attention. Thank you again, both --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As a newcomer to WP I am amusd by all the attention this article has created. I am howeverr glad to find someone I know of whose article I can (I hope) improve a little bit.--Errater (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

@Errater, there's always a need to check over your edits for misspellings or other errors and to make sure you put a source for all new material, or the burden falls on someone else. - This is meant as a helpful guide, not at all as a criticism. No matter how careful I think I am, I often find I have made errors when I check over my saved edits a little later. :) Agadant (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Point taken Agadant --Errater (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Further COI review

As User:Skier Dude replaced COI tag previously agreed unnecessary I have asked for COI review--Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Following the result of COI review I have removed the COI tag--Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

I only became "Paul S Farmer" because there was already an article about a much worthier namesake. Although User: Moonriddengirl kindly arranged a note at the top of his page to lead to mine, I have never used my middle initial and am known as "Paul Farmer". Would it be too bold to suggest a disambiguation page for us? There are some other notable Paul Farmers, and I would like to be able to start articles about them. Any advice appreciated.

Not normally done when there are only two entries. Need three or more Paul Farmers before a disambiguation page would be created. Yworo (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A more explicit explanation would have been helpful. The specific WP guideline on Disambiguation is at WP:DAB. If you go down to the section "Deciding to disambiguate", you will see there are three scenarios discussed. The relevant here appears to be the "Michael Dobbs" scenario, where there is one primary topic (/subject), and only one other use (/subject). Searching on the name finds the primary article, which is basically the one most people are more likely to want to find; the other subject is linked directly at the primary article using a "hatnote", *that's* why no disambiguation page is needed. (A "hatnote" is a referral at the top of the article under the subject name - per the "Michael Dobbs" article, "For the American author, see Michael Dobbs (US author)." (using an internal link to the second article). Alternatively for infojunkies, WP:DAB#Hatnotes. Paul, if you do articles on other notable PFs, excellent, you may find a read through WP:DAB helpful. But I wish you luck and courage trying to decide which is the most important/primary subject! Opbeith (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Going on from that, the thought strikes me that "Paul Stephen Farmer" could be identified instead as "Paul Farmer (British music educationalist)" (or something else appropriate/acceptable). That would involve a move of the content to a new article under the new name with a Redirect from the old name, which you should ask a WP administrator to do.Opbeith (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used as a political/social media tool

While searching Google I noticed that there was an article called Paul Stephen Farmer. I also noticed that there was another page User:Paul Stephen Farmer. I then inspected the article's history, and talk page and was disappointed to learn that several editors had approved this article (preventing it from being deleted). I am disappointed that Wikipedia can be used as a political tool like this (this man obviously used it to improve his visibility for elections). If some local "Bob" wants to elevate himself politically then he should use Twitter or Facebook. Wikipedia is not a social media tool! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.15.233 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• What a pity that, unlike me, you refuse to identify yourself, thereby denying the reader any context for your seemingly ill-informed comments. Several editors (all with far more experience of Wiki than you) approved this article (after heavy editing) because it is considered of note. If it is a political "tool" then it is a very blunt one. The thrust of it is related to my main career in education, especially as an innovator in the use of pop music in education. Only at the end is my recent political activity mentioned and fully referenced, and then with some self-deprecation - and yet no mention of my political affiliation! Far from using this article to "improve my visibility" I do that by keeping in contact with my electorate via newsletters, email and social media (@CllrPaulFarmer). Rather than remove it I have edited your added sentence and await further comments, including those from others. Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• 41.135.15.233 , Wikipedia is not a social media tool, but our purpose is to neutrally summarize what reliable sources say about notable subjects, and this article was retained because the community determined on review that it met the inclusion guidelines. I've removed the sentence you added because its inclusion doesn't meet our guidelines. We're not here to make our own commentary, but, again, to neutrally summarize what reliable sources say in talking about notable subjects. If a subject editing his or her own article becomes controversial or interesting enough to attract media attention (as sometimes it does), it may be entirely appropriate to note that in the article (as long as it is not given undue weight), but if this is not a fact that has attracted significant coverage from reliable sources, it's not something we would include. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also draw the OP’s attention to the connected-contributor banner near the top of this page, which is the appropriate location for notices of the kind.—Odysseus1479 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what Paul S. Farmer's motives were for creating this article. His motives are immaterial to the question of whether this article is actually notable. Here then are my arguments for why I think this article should be deleted:

1) And this article was retained because the community determined on review that it met the inclusion guidelines.

The "community" in this instance included 6 editors: the outcome 2 deletes to 4 keeps. That is a very small sample, don't you think? The three who voted for a keep accepted a specious argument (no offense meant) made by Moonriddengirl which said that this article should be kept because the author had published in OUP, and ignored the fact that the author had a vested interest in the article. Why was it assumed that being published in OUP automatically gives a person enough credibility to be in WP? Look here: The Misadventures of Winnie the Witch. The Misadventures of Winnie the Witch was published by OUP. Does that make it notable? No, not necessarily. Can you see now why the OUP = credibility assumption is incorrect?

2) Our purpose is to neutrally summarize what reliable sources say about notable subjects

From Wikipedia's notability guidelines:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Why did you choose to ignore this? If I were notable enough and there were public interest in me or one of my works then an article would be written about me or my works. The invisible hand of notability works because public interest, and not committees, affiliated persons or paid contributors decide what should be included.

I motion that this article be re-nominated for deletion, and that other Wikipedians besides those who initially voted and/or were in contact with Paul S. Farmer also be allowed to decide the fate of this article. What do you think? Is this too much to ask for the sake of improving the quality of content that appears on Wikipedia? Paul, I don't see why identifying myself is relevant to this discussion, and it shouldn't be; I wasn't even aware of your existence until I discovered this article through a keyword search on Google! It is difficult enough for other Wikipedians to make a dispassionate decision when there is there is potential to upset people (namely, you). I trust that you will all make the right decision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.15.233 (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed your threading; Wikipedia:Talk talks a little bit about how talk pages are organized. I'm afraid that your note above out of sequence is likely to be overlooked.

Deletion debates are publicly listed for seven days, during which all editors are welcome to join in. During those seven days, the article is flagged visibly, so any bypasser with an interest can speak. That is the process that this article followed during its last listing and the process that it would follow if nominated again. Those of us who expressed an opinion before are welcome to express an opinion this time; I will certainly do so. I'm sorry if this feels unfair to you, but it's the way the process works. (It's interesting that you characterize the keep decision as hinging on my argument given that User:DGG voiced his first, and more strongly, and is named by several participants as influencing their decision. Maybe you overlooked his signature?)

It isn't unusual for a deletion debate to have a small number of participants. We typically process dozens in a day - for instance, on Friday (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 30) 86 articles were nominated for deletion. It sometimes happens that nobody participates in a deletion debate at all, or only one or two people do. This is normal community process. Articles are only deleted if there is consensus to do so.

If you want to nominate this article for deletion, see WP:AFD, which will tell you more about the process. You should read the linked policy and the linked steps for how to do it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

not surprisingly, I agree with Moonriddengirl's comments. As I said at the AfD, the subject of the article is notable as an author, but not as a politician. The material on the political career needs to be removed or drastically shortened.The description of the teaching career needs to have its puffery removed. The general style of the article is a good illustration of why it is very strongly advised that people should Not try to put their own Autobiographies into Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I understood that notability came from having pioneered the use of pop music in school teaching. I am surprised by the brouhaha this article has created, so long after having been accepted by the community following considerable editing. I am happy to edit further along lines suggested by DGG, particularly if this avoids deletion. I await further advice. Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul, this is really part of the average life cycle of an article. Some have gone through deletion debate repeatedly. In terms of editing, it's really better that you not, unless specific issues are raised. Your name in the edit history alone can be controversial. You've been very cooperative with the community in following our WP:COI guidelines and addressing concerns once they are pointed out to you. It is not uncommon for people to accidentally fall afoul of COI before they are aware of the issue, and as far as I'm concerned your response has been exemplary. In the age of Facebook and other social media sites, a lot of people assume Wikipedia works the same way - we get emails from people who think that all the time. If the IP chooses to nominate the article for deletion, it will be flagged for probably a week while the community considers the question of whether sourcing about you demonstrates that you meet inclusion guidelines. It's no reflection on you personally. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)