This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
I have added a short text about Balestrero predecessor, Virgil R. Carter, former executive director of the Institute:
During Carters tenure, PMI experienced a 350 percent net growth in membership to 90,000-members and expanded its global component organizations in 120 countries. He also spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001.<ref>[http://www.asmenews.org/archives/backissues/may02/features/carter.html "ASME names new executive director]" in: ASME news May 2002.</ref>
This text is removed twince by User:Politizer with the following arguments:
remove: not only is this plagiarized, but it's about Balestrero's predecessor, not Balestrero himself
plagiarism issue is being explained in cordial discussion at Mdd's talk page. also, regardless of plagiarism, information about the accomplishments of Balestrero's predecessor is not necessary h
Now the first argument, the case of plagiarism is under debate.
Nopw I think the second argument by User:Politizer "information about the accomplishments of Balestrero's predecessor is not necessary" is questionable. This information is not just about Virgil R. Carter. It is primairy information about the growth of the PMI, and the text is in the PMI section. This peace of information put's the growth of the PMI in perspective:
1997-2002 : 350 percent net growth in membership to 90,000-members under Carter
2002-2008 : from 93,000 in 2002 to over 260,000 members under Balestrero
Who is User:Politizer to decide this is not important. Ok this information could also be added in the PMI article, but he. The story starts some where, and there is no rule that things should only be stated once in Wikipedia.
Now I already admitted on my talk page, that this particular two lines are better of if I add "according to", because of the particular information. This will show that these are no official numbers.
So I propose I putt the text back with the "according to" and I will leave it with that.
I am not very familiar with the subject of the article or the background of PMI, so maybe there are special circumstances that make this information relevant. I'm just thinking that in a normal situation I would not include this information, or I would only mention it briefly and without all the detail (saying something like "Balestrero continued the rapid growth that began under his predecessor, Virgil Carter"). I won't be able to make a more specific judgment until I've had time to read the article and all the supporting materials, which might not happen right away, so if anyone could add a second opinion it would be much appreciated. —Politizertalk/contribs22:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current text doesn't make sense any more, and that is bothering me. Now it states:
"...Balestrero would almost tripled the number of members again in the next seven years."
Just this one sentence shows that the removed text was integrated in the whole section.
Now I think information got lost here. Now I already made a new version, which brings us to a total of three versions:
The original version:
Project Management Institute
Gregory Balestrero brought more than 20 years in executive level association experience to the Project Management Institute (PMI), when in 2002 he became it's President and CEO. He succeeded Virgil R. Carter, former executive director of the Institute. During Carters tenure, PMI experienced a 350 percent net growth in membership to 90,000-members and expanded its global component organizations in 120 countries. He also spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001.[1]
Balestrero would almost tripled the number of members again in the next seven years. His two primary goals for PMI are building a superior project management practice and gaining global acceptance for the profession. During his tenure, PMI has grown from 93,000 in 2002 to over 260,000 members in 2008 in over 150 countries worldwide.[2]
Gregory Balestrero brought more than 20 years in executive level association experience to the Project Management Institute (PMI), when in 2002 he became its president and CEO. He succeeded Virgil R. Carter, former executive director of the Institute. Balestrero continued the rapid expansion started during Carter's tenure,[3] almost tripling the number of members in seven years. His two primary goals for PMI are building a superior project management practice and gaining global acceptance for the profession. During his tenure, PMI has grown from 93,000 in 2002 to over 260,000 members in 2008 in over 150 countries worldwide.[2]
A third version:
Project Management Institute
Gregory Balestrero brought more than 20 years in executive level association experience to the Project Management Institute (PMI), when in 2002 he became it's President and CEO. He succeeded Virgil R. Carter, former executive director of the Institute. During Carters tenure, according to ASME NEWS (2002), PMI experienced a "350 percent net growth in membership to 90,000-members and expanded its global component organizations in 120 countries".[4]. He also "spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001".[4]
Balestrero would almost tripled the number of members again in the next seven years. His two primary goals for PMI are building a superior project management practice and gaining global acceptance for the profession. During his tenure, PMI has grown from 93,000 in 2002 to over 260,000 members in 2008 in over 150 countries worldwide.[2]
Now it seems to me both the second and third version have have no copy vio problems. Now there is lot to say about the both versions. I prefer the third version, because this gives more information: The buget information and the source stated in the text. I agree it can still be rephrased (for example He also "spearheaded PMI's financial growth...) but also those budget info is important here.
I just don't think the specific number for Carter's accomplishments are necessary here. It's enough to say that Carter expanded membership and budget, and then give more specific numbers for what Balestrero did; the article is about Balestrero, not Carter. —Politizertalk/contribs23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion item is changed now from "copy-vio" to "quantitively specifying data". Now you don't think it is important. Other people can say it is important.
But in this particular case it is very important. I have been rewritting several project management articles last week and among them:
... and some more etc, ect. So you could call me an (or the) expert. It took me quite some time, I think two whole days. These numbers put the field in some perspective. Now I could explain some more why these numbers are important. Now again, these specific numbers are not about Carter (his age or his salery) these are numbers of the PMI. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just changing my story to try to get rid of the information. The reason we discussed copyvio first is because that was a much more serious issue and needed to get cleaned up right away; also, I noticed the copyvio first, and it was only later that I looked closely and saw that the information did not seem relevant.
As for the numbers...if they are significant, they should still be worded in terms that keep the focus on Balestrero. For example, "when Balestrero took control of PMI, it had _____ budget and _____ members." —Politizertalk/contribs23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I did some more research an made a correction in the Project Management Institute article, concerning the revenu's. This specific revenues or budget are notable information in that article, and here just as well. I think, we don't have to argue about that.
Your alternative proposal is a typical example, why I don't like to rewrite text in my own words. Easily information get lost, because you think, it is not important. I like to give as much information as is available in a source. I am not going to judge if information might be important or not. Making the choice not to rewrite a text had little to do with the fact that I am unable to rewrite. It is a choice. The data in the original text was a very effective combination. I prefer to keep that intact.
I think we have just two different ways of writting. Now I don't agree with you second remark. You can't control it that black and white. I have written over 200 biographical articles and wikified over maybe 2000. And the rules I use:
Most more advanced article are split in a biographical part, and a part about work related items.
In the biographical section of a biographical article, I think, you are right. Every thing should relate directly to the person in question.
But in the work related section you should loosen up. The things should all relate to the work items. And these numbers relate to the PMI.
Plagiarism doesn't have to be immediately removed, unlike copyright violations. It does need to be properly attributed to its source. If you find an example of plagiarism, contact the editor responsible, point them to this guideline page and ask them to provide the proper attribution. You can also change the copied material or provide the attribution on your own...
This text states you could "change the copied material". I think you have "removed some of the material" and are getting in an argument with an expert in the field whether this information should be there or not. I think we should not be having this kind of conversation.
I proposed to reinstate the third alternative (see above), which solves the copyvio problems, with no lost of information. So I would like to reinstate that solution. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're just talking past each other. You believe information is being lost; I believe the information I removed was irrelevant to the article anyway (WP:IINFO). As for removing plagiarized material, again, I uphold that I removed nothing but material that was irrelevant...and even if I did remove plagiarized material, well, WP:Plagiarism says it doesn't have to be removed, it doesn't say it can't be removed. Just like unsourced information, plagiarized information is fair game to be removed without notice. But again, that issue is moot, as I wasn't removing info for being plagiarized but for not being relevant to the article. Specific numbers about what Balestrero did to the PMI are relevant; specific numbers about what someone else did are not.
Since we just seem to be talking around one another now, you might as well find someone to give a second opinion, because I am never going to be convinced that that information is relevant to the article and you are probably never going to be convinced that it isn't. —Politizertalk/contribs01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory Balestrero brought more than 20 years in executive level association experience to the Project Management Institute (PMI), when in 2002 he became its president and CEO. He succeeded Virgil R. Carter, former executive director of the Institute. Balestrero continued the rapid expansion started during Carter's tenure,[5] almost tripling the number of members in seven years. His two primary goals for PMI are building a superior project management practice and gaining global acceptance for the profession. During his tenure, PMI has grown from 93,000 in 2002 to over 260,000 members in 2008 in over 150 countries worldwide.[2]
Gregory Balestrero brought more than 20 years in executive level association experience to the Project Management Institute (PMI), when in 2002 he became it's President and CEO. He succeeded Virgil R. Carter, former executive director of the Institute. During Carters tenure, according to ASME NEWS (2002), PMI experienced a "350 percent net growth in membership to 90,000-members and expanded its global component organizations in 120 countries".[4]. He also "spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001".[4]
Balestrero would almost tripled the number of members again in the next seven years. His two primary goals for PMI are building a superior project management practice and gaining global acceptance for the profession. During his tenure, PMI has grown from 93,000 in 2002 to over 260,000 members in 2008 in over 150 countries worldwide.[2]
Maybe I should try to explain one more time, the problem at hand:
Gregory Balestrero is CEO of the Project Management Institute (PMI), which is a mayor player in the field of Project Management world wide.
Balestrero has largely contributed to the growth of the PMI in the last seven years.
His contribution to this growth is mentioned in his biographical article, in number of members and countries, revenues.
To put these quantitative data in perspective I have added quantitative data of the achievements of his predecessor as well.
These extra data is simply an extra layer in the article.
Now an other editor, Politizer, seems to be confinced that these extra data is not relevant... and doesn't want this data to be added one way or an other. I find this attitute unacceptable. The goal of Wikipedia is to give information, not to withhold information. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That solution is fine with me. I have copyedited that section to improve readability, but have not removed any information, as all the information is relevant in that article. —Politizertalk/contribs18:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^ abcdeCite error: The named reference NASA2007 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^While president, Carter brought about a 350% increase in membership, as well as major financial growth. See "ASME names new executive director" in: ASME news May 2002.
^While president, Carter brought about a 350% increase in membership, as well as major financial growth. See "ASME names new executive director" in: ASME news May 2002.
I don't remember all the details of the discussion back in December or what our conclusions were... but the text in the current version of the article looks like blatant cut-and-paste plagiarism to me. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs09:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001." is directly lifted from the article word for word. If it is not in quotes it is a copyright violation. -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. There is the quote. Now what about a common phrase, see for example here: If the source is cited, it is not plagarism. There may be other problems, but not "plagarism".
P.S. This whole discussion started with the fact that the original "spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001" wasn't quote. That was the the main part of the whole discussion item.
Andrew, I agree completely. Our plagiarism article is completely off base. Plagiarism is two separate offences: 1) taking credit, and 2) failing to give credit. Offence number one is of central concern in an acedimic and professional context and is very serious, but is essentially irrelevant to Wikipedia. For us, the problem is offence number two. While I feel it is still a serious ethical breech, it is much less severe than falsely taking credit. We need to justify our anti-plagiarism policy on our own terms, and not in terms of acedimic plagiarism. -Arch dude (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a difficult fussy line between summarising a source and citing it, and paraphrasing a source, which although not a legal copyright violation, is still plagiarism, even if the source is cited, because sources are usually cited for other reasons (usually to show that it is not WP:OR). This is a matter of judgement and in this case is not directly relevant as not putting the words lifted from any article under copyright in quotes is a copyright violation. -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it must be getting late because again I don't understand. The text I removed (see here) was a composition of at least 7 to 8 quotes from 4 or 5 different sources. Not just copied from a copyright source... -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you must quote each one, or summarise the sources, what you can not do is use sentences or phrases from the original sources without putting them in quotes so "spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001" must be in quotes, if you want to paraphrase it then something like this would do: between 1997 and 2001 PMI's budget grew nearly four fold, from eight to 30 million dollars. Usually it is more difficult to summarise just one source, it is much easier to summarise multiple sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdd: the "diff" you list above is not a policy or guideline, it's one random guy's opinion, and it's wrong: if a source is cited but no indication (quotation marks) is given to indicate that its wording is stolen directly, it is plagiarism. Citing a source attributes the origin of the ideas, but quotation marks are necessary to indicate when you're copying the wording as well. Both ideas and word choice need to be attributed. Since you clearly do not understand this, perhaps you need to read WP:PLAGIARISM (the guideline itself, not just the discussion page) before editing any further. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs15:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your advice. I read the article and learned there are a lot of exceptions. (This is something typically Dutch, bye the way, looking for the exceptions and the possibilities to bend the rules). Now I will turn to the Talk:Project Management Institute page and work on the alledged copyright infrigments over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for "exceptions" and loopholes to allow you to plagiarize is not really a good spirit for writing. Just avoid plagiarism, and be conservative by avoiding anything that might be plagiarism. That way you don't have to worry about all the "exceptions", and your writing will be better for it anyway. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Assume good faith. I guess you missed the point. In Holland we tell a joke about an army excercise of the German, Belgium and Dutch army. The Germans do everything by the book and pass, the Belgium do everything by the book and fail, and the Dutch do nothing by the book and pass anyway. This is what I ment by typically Dutch, thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 4 external links on Gregory Balestrero. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
