User talk:ADM/Archive 10

Terence Goodall

Hi. I noticed you had spun out Terence Goodall from Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Melbourne. You've done good work on it, but I don't think it will survive as a stand alone article - it runs into WP:BLP1E, and is predominatly about Pell rather than Goodall. I was going to propose a merger along these lines, but I thought it might be easier to check with you about merging the new material back into Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Melbourne, keeping what you've added. Would you be happy with this, or would you rather it was raised as a merger proposal on the talk pages? - Bilby (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to a merger, since I know that there are many similar pages like this that have turned out correctly, such as Gerry Francis Ridsdale and Oliver O'Grady for example. However, I do like the way that you re-wrote the article, and I think that it would be much better off that way. ADM (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll let it sit for a little while and see if it develops some more - there's a hint that there may be something about the use of old laws in the conviction that may help show possible significance. The problem, though, is that the two examples you give are of much more serious offenses that hit the media multiple times - in Ridsdale's case because of the nature and extent of the acts and the two trials, while with O'Grady there's still a large number of victims of serious abuse and a movie. In the case of Goodall all we have are a single conviction for an old crime that didn't make a statement about coercion one way or the other, against an adult, and a second case against a minor for which he has never been charged. The scandal with Goodall was largely to do with Pell's response, rather than Goodall himself. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of these scandals involves the bishops' responses, so it's not surprising that we especially look for Bernard Law's responses in Boston or Roger Mahony's responses in Los Angeles, etc. Moreover, the fact that this particular affair has been dragging on for over 25 years, since 1982, gives it a bit more notability than if it was just a case that was quickly resolved in a short period of time. And there is also the fact that more than one victim has been disclosed, i.e. this Goodall character is probably a multiple-case offender whose offenses have been deliberately under-reported for purposes of institutional secrecy. ADM (talk)

I guess he may have, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was covered up if he had, but there isn't anything we can use in regard to other victims. My concern is still that he seems only to be significant because of Pell's response, while the other cases seem to be significant in their own right. (The duration doesn't help us much, because the 20 year wait was due to the victim not coming forward). I guess we'll see what happens with it - there was a bit of news when he was convicted in 2003 under what were effectively anti-homosexual laws, and there's the stuff about Pell in 2008, so maybe it can be built up past the one event. It seems fair enough to give it a bit of time to find out. - Bilby (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Terence Goodall, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Also, please add more biographical info to the article. For this to be a stand-alone article, it needs more info about the person, not just the legal case. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White ethnic

As there is a clear dispute, even though the content is unreferenced perhaps we should put it back and the take it for discussion at AFD ? Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't have the document available to me right now, but I am quite sure that there is an unwritten rule among Wikipedians that it is not appropriate to spontaneously delete text immediately before proposing an AFD. ADM (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not a bnp and the content is not very controversial and it has been there for some time, if we sent it to AFD for discussion I would support replacing the content for the discussion and during the week the content that you could add sources for or other people added sources for could be kept, that is if the consensus is for keep. Shall we do that? Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not sending it to AFD at all if that is possible, since this is not at all controversial for most people who have a good knowledge of the racial question in the USA. There are basically two types of white groups in the USA : the WASPs and the white ethnics. This is merely an entry about the second group, which is widely recognized in politics and society. But I was just saying that if it does go to AFD, it would be wrong to delete the existing text without any justification. ADM (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Izzie is replacing some content, if you want a middle man feel free to ask me. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. ^Izzedine 20:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding references for the "Anti-X sentiment" subsections? that is working backwards. First reference the lead, otherwise you are synthesizing. ^Izzedine 20:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was easier to add sources for that particular part. Let me start with the easier part, then I will also try to find references for the harder part. Then we'll talk. ADM (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles only need a "See also" link - if the lead is properly cited. You shouldn't copy and paste the leads to several other articles to fill it out, especially not before referencing the article's subject properly. Save your time because I will remove those subsections. And respond on your talk page [rather than swapping] please. ^Izzedine 20:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will turn those sub-sections into links because I don't want to waste my time adding sources that will probably be removed. ADM (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TY

Thanks. ^Izzedine 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passive euthanasia

This is not worthy of an article. Please remove and re-insert text in Euthanasia. ► RATEL ◄ 16:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your POV. I think it is worthy of an article. Deletionism is dead, deletionists have lost. ADM (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecocentrism

I think the addition of well-articulated criticisms of ecocentrism would be excellent. The object of this article is not to "promote" a particular view but to express it as clearly as possible. Consideration of opposing or different views is, IMO, all part of that process. Please add these views. My only slight concern is that the article already includes discussion of other contrasting views, namely technocentrism etc., so a new section heading of criticisms and controversies seems a bit unnecessary, perhaps a different kind of heading would be better. Anyway - Wikipedia encourages you to edit away - please do. Granitethighs 22:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested

Can you visit this page [1] and add you thoughts/evidence. JPBHarris (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that what you say is accurate, since I was the first one to openly speak about the existence of multiple accounts for this one user. ADM (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Brittany Murphy. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. And please do not add such recentism to an article like Vicodin. It is highly inappropriate. DKqwerty (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with deleting relevant discussion about the alleged causes of her death. Wikipedia isn't supposed to become complacent with official media, this would make it a mere tribune to official government inquiries and investigations. Besides, there are already plenty of cases where complacence becomes impossible, such as in the series on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. ADM (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or blog, it is an encyclopedia. Articles which are sourced from quotations from people's Tweets and from unnamed sources are not reliable in any manner; articles about people are meant to be biographies, not a listings of recent events. And adding that kind of inappropriate reference to Michael Jackson can easily be construed as vandalism.

Please use a little self-control and commonsense with your edits. DKqwerty (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(And please do not duplicate this discussion on my user pages)

Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. I would certainly argue that TMZ.com is a reliable source, and that any objection to this source amounts to a type of posturing (WP:POV). ADM (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives