Jump to content

Talk:Carolyn Bivens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article is not limited to Bivens's tenure as LPGA Commissioner

[edit]

Editor Wikitology noted that "...the page is ostensibly about Bivens's tenure as commissioner..." This is not true. The article is about Carolyn Bivens and anything about her life that is deemed notable can and should be included. --Crunch (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of Sources

[edit]

This page really irks me on a variety of levels. While reading today about Sirak's latest boycott, it occurred to me that not only his, but all accounts I've read of the 2006 press credential affair are inherently biased. It would be one thing if the actual contract were public domain, but it seems naive to take a person at their word regarding a contract they've disputed. Likewise, the other events are problematic for similar reasons: everything is "mysterious sources tell me y," "secret anonymous insider says z," which is to say, hearsay. That may fly for someone like Sirak to get an article published, but it's certainly not encyclopedia-grade material. Does anyone have primary sources for any of these events? Wikitology (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in a situation like this, all sources are biased. The best we can do is follow the fundamental Wikipedia principle of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It's a good sources for learning how to work with the NPOV standard as is the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Primary sources are not necessary because they are not always available. It would be great if they always were! I'm guessing for some of these events, they never will be. The best way to piece together a good account is to use multiple sources from reputable publications, to cite sources carefully and to write in a neutral tone. I think all the editors who have worked on this article have done a pretty good job of adhering to the Wikipedia standards for NPOV. One other point. It is customary when adding a new section to a Talk page to add the section to the bottom of the page, not to the top like you did here. If you click on the "new section" tab at the top of the page, this will happen automatically. This makes the dialogue easier to follow. I'm going to take the liberty of moving this section down. --Crunch (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the all of the resources you've been providing! I'll be sure to fully digest the material in those links before making further edits. The standards and protocol information is especially helpful, too. I haven't looked at the contributions of past editors, but I think that your last round of changes significantly attenuated the rhetorical noise in the text. I'll check out those links. Cheers Wikitology (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content about LPGA governance and why the search committee picked Bivens

[edit]

This is not an article about the governance structure of the LPGA or why the LPGA chose Bivens for the job of commissioner. Obviously they chose her because they thought she as the strongest candidate. That is obvious or she would not have been hired. Information about the the role of the LPGA Commissions and the Role of the LPGA Board can, and is covered in LPGA. --Crunch (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article about the LPGA, it's a biography about a living person, so my understanding is that WP:BLP is what determines both relevancy and accuracy. As a biography, questions concerning why this person was chosen to fill this role (which necessitates a description of what that role is), at this point in their life, and what they in particular chose to do within or without the role are absolutely topical. You can't assume that any given person who reads this page will have any knowledge whatever of or about the LPGA and its internal machinations. You've left the sentence describing the lower bounds of the person's executive reach, and removed the sentence describing the upper bounds, which has the net effect of both distorting the role and making balanced assessment of the events impossible. It turns biography into caricature - at best. "Excess of detail" is a strange objection on a biography page that at one point was half full of quotes from other people about using Twitter.Wikitology (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, two days later and you haven't responded. I've been polite, accepted that I'd perhaps broached Wikipedia etiquette or made an error of some sort, but your inability or refusal to respond is simply disrespectful of the time I've spent researching, organizing, and composing the material. I would 'think' that the person credited with the most LPGA contributions would want to see a comprehensive bio on one of its commissioners more than anyone, but that doesn't really seem to be the case, so I'll speak plainly. First and foremost, your discussion is disingenuous, as you removed material that can't by any stretch be fit under the sub-head of LPGA governance or search selection criteria. If Bivens's priorities as commissioner, and how well she accomplished them, aren't relevant to a section about her tenure as commissioner, then nothing is. I say that based on Wikipedia standards, not my own; Golfweek isn't in the same game as publications like TIME Magazine or Forbes (both of which you removed), let alone the same league, so the material you removed trumps just about everything in terms of Wikipedia's standards for noteworthiness.

The functions of commissioner can't possibly be "obvious" to anybody who doesn't work for the LPGA. The first question I asked myself when I read the bit about her being commissioner was, "what's a commissioner do, anyway?" I don't know how anyone else who'd stumble across this page would ask any differently, as my research made clear that the capacities and constraints of the position are actually highly idiosyncratic. Your suggestion that people should jump all over cyberspace to find the answers for themselves, in order to save the page one sentence of text, is ludicrous -- by that logic, all of Wikipedia should be canned.

Third, I'm calling you out on your "the last editors have done a reasonable job" remark. If I return to the earlier revisions, almost the entire thing would be subject to deletion under WP:BLP:Libel policy. That still holds true, as WP:BLP:Libel supervenes on whatever rumors and gossip you arbitrarily have deemed noteworthy and eligible for inclusion after doctoring it up with your quasi-neutral language. As much as I appreciate your RECENT edits, it hasn't escaped me that the majority of the patently libelous contributions were your own, so you were really just undoing your mis-deeds of the past. The present still remains, and remains insufficient; if I were to create a page on Bill Clinton, dedicate it entirely to his sexual escapades and alleged drug use, while striking down all other factual contributions as being "excessive details," it wouldn't be remotely "neutral," no matter how closely my account conformed with NPOV policy.

Last, what disturbs me most of all, and what I want an answer to more than anything, are the implications that follow from what you've said and done: 1) "This article is about Bivens and anything deemed notable about her can and will be included -- Crunch," 2)[in response to my pointing out that the sources were phony]"I think in a situation like this, all sources are biased ... Primary sources are not necessary because they are not always available ... The best way to piece together a good account is to use multiple sources from reputable publications, to cite sources carefully and to write in a neutral tone -- Crunch," 3)[after I'd posted relevant facts from reputable publications]"deleting due to excessive detail. --Crunch," 4)[after I provide a perfectly good reason for including them] "..."

People make mistakes, and are prone to impulse, and I don't toss around accusations about integrity lightly, so I'm going to hold back and let you digest and respond before reporting my gut feeling... but I think any reasonable person who reads that trail of events will be left with the same feeling that I have, and it isn't a pleasant one. I took on this page because I wanted to learn Wikipedia. The twisted irony is that, while you've given me direction in the technical aspects, you're also starting to provide empirical proof for many of the reasons I've been given to stay clear away. I've examined Wikipedia policy, and am reasonably confident that I'm in the right on this. Will you please explain yourself? Are you interested in a bio that conforms with WP:BLP policy, or a smear piece? I'm out of patience, and I'm not going to sit here wondering if my work will go to nothing while you figure out where your head is at; please respond in a reasonable, respectable timeframe, or I'll just go straight to Wikipedia Administration, and let them sort it out.Wikitology (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English proficiency requirement

[edit]

After doing some cursory searching, it appears that much of what has been posted here was fallacious, so I'm removing it as per Wikipedia's libel policy. Given the subject matter, I think it's irresponsible to post on the subject without having the facts straight, so I'm not going to post my edit until it's fully ready and extensively sourced. (For justificatory starters, the policy was never implemented, resources were provided according to the LPGA, the initiative itself is still in place...) Wikitology (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carolyn Bivens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carolyn_Bivens&oldid=1257144406"