Talk:Pilsen Wellness Center

Controversies

Re-added the Controversies subsection that had been repeatedly blanked by anonymous IP edits. Section has a NPOV tone and references are accurate. Kausticgirl (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several major concerns regarding the sources used in this large and WP:UNDUE section. First, PDF primary sources such as court documents are not acceptable as reliable sources. Second, all direct quotes must include an explicit inline citation from a reliable source. The Fox News report mentions allegations only. Finally, non-neutral organizations cannot be used to support material in their favour. There are serious BLP implications regarding having an entire section labelled "controversy" that casts aspersions on relatively unknown individuals - each allegation and its corresponding source will need to be vetted and consensus reached in order for any of the material to be restored. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 00:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) The government audits cited are considered secondary sources according to Wikipedia guidelines because they "involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." 2) Fox News is a respectable secondary source according to Wikipedia guidelines. While part of their report included allegations the fact that the CEO hired a number of his relatives are facts supported by the government audits and the non-profit's own organizational chart obtained by Fox News. 3) Pilsen Wellness Center is a very well known and respected agency in Chicago, particularly in the Hispanic community. As a result, controversies are especially relevant and the undue weight claim is not supported. 4) Finally, their are no BLP issues since the article is about an organization and not an individual.

I'm restoring the deleted section until consensus can be reached. Please note, that blanking sections violates many policies and is often considered vandalism. Kausticgirl (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are WP:BLP implications with the material you are attempting to add back to the article. Per WP:BURDEN You will need to gain consensus at a neutral venue such as WP:BLPN for any of this material to be restored. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring section without BLP material. Kausticgirl (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not acceptable - you absolutely must gain consensus to restore any of this material given the poor sourcing. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 04:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The possible BLP material was removed and you still think it's better to delete referenced material? Kausticgirl (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained how the sources do not meet the reliable sourcing criteria. As noted previously the burden is on your to gain consensus to restore any of the contentious information. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 05:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kausticgirl you are still restoring the same material based solely on non-neutral union sources. I have repeatedly noted above that the burden is on you to show how the sources meet reliable sourcing criteria for contentious information. I have come to review the article based on WP:OTRS concerns raised and am completely neutral regarding the topic. If the sources had been appropriate to support the contentious material then I would not have removed them. Given your editing history (mainly Chicago schools) it appears that you have a conflict of interest regarding the topic. There is no prohibition on adding negative content to this article, but it must meet our policies regarding neutrality and sourcing. As I originally stated in this thread in order to restore any of the material removed you need to get consensus to do so; edit warring to restore the material, especially when it appears you have a conflict of interest in the matter, will not bring about the article changes you desire. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions at Reliable sources/Noticeboard here and here --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]