User talk:Amweder

Edits to Robert Bringhurst

Thanks for your edits to Robert Bringhurst! I appreciate the new sources, but I have rewritten the Haida controversy section since you posted. I've kept most of what you said, but I edited the text and added references in order to comply with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any problems or further suggestions.

Cheers,

--Rawlangs (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not quite sure how to get into the talk page...or am I on it now? CHeers, --AW

Hey, you're on yours now. You can get to mine by clicking the "talk" link next to my signature. To access an article's talk page, click the talk tab at the top of the article. You can create a new section on that page once you're there by clicking the "new section" tab. You can also sign talk submissions using the signature button at the top of the text field (the picture of the pen) or by typing four tildes in a row. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Rawlangs (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Robert Bringhurst

I'm trying to assume good faith, but you can't add potentially libelous material (like the claims about threatened lawsuits, claims about his education, claims he can't translate Haida) without sourcing it. This is non-negotiable. All edits to a biography of living persons article must conform to WP:BLP. I reverted your edits in compliance with this policy. Specifically: "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Further, it's misleading to rewrite the article but leave the citations in place as you did. For instance, you can't say that Bringhurst was "threatening to sue Leer, the journal, and all the board members of the International Journal of American Linguistics" because the cited retraction does not support that statement. You can't claim the information you're adding is fact without citing sources, this is a violation of WP:OR ("material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"), and WP:V ("content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences").

Just because you wrote an article on the subject does not mean everything you add to the wiki article gets a free pass. You're walking pretty close to the line on WP:SELFCITE ("It is better not to cite material you have written or published; if the material is notable and relevant, someone else is likely to cite it.") You provided the citation to your article, I read it, I researched the reaction to it, and what reaction to it I could find was negative. I wrote an accurate (and cited) reflection of that reaction compliant with WP:UNDUE ("Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views") and WP:BALANCE ("Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance").

As for the current treatment of detracting viewpoints in the article, I believe it follows WP:NPOV already. The reactions to Bringhurst's translations (and by the way, the majority calls everything after A Story As Sharp As A Knife translation, a fact already reflected in the bibliography) was overwhelmingly positive, and what play opposing viewpoints got in the press was convincingly, and repeatedly rebuffed in academic sources. I present the opposing viewpoints, but also the negative reaction to those viewpoints. Enrico's anonymous flaming was removed, the Leer review was retracted, and the Globe allowed Bringhurst to respond to your article. That is the extent of original, published, negative criticism I've been able to find. I believe both the criticisms and the responses to those criticisms are described accurately in a way already compliant with WP:NPOV and specifically WP:IMPARTIAL ("Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article").

TL;DR: Information presented in biographies of living persons must be verifiable or removed immediately. Wikipedia reflects verifiable facts, not personal beliefs and opinions (no matter how closely held). Wikipedia discourages you from citing yourself. Wikipedia describes conflicts, but does not engage in them. Consequently, if one viewpoint is more commonly believed than another, the more commonly believed view gets more attention on wikipedia.

Thanks,

--Rawlangs (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, Rawlangs, I do need to find the time to learn more about proper protocol and citations regulations. And definitely I know that writing an article doesn't give me a "free pass" but there were certain facts culled for the research into this article that were not neccessarily published in the article itself, such as the fact that I phoned both MIT and emailed Noam Chomsky himself, both sources told me directly that Robert Bringhurst spent one freshman year in general studies and did not study linguistics (which at that time was only offered to graduate students at MIT). But I'm not sure how to reference this. Any suggestions are welcome. Similarly, it was individuals at the IJAL itself who told me, on the phone, that they received a letter from Bringhurst (or perhaps his lawyer--that I'm not sure of), threatening to sue the journal, its board and its authors if the journal didn't publish a public retraction. Three of the individuals involved expressed great anger at their feeling of being muzzled and coerced into the retraction, but I would not think of adding that to this entry, because (a) it's difficult to cite as "fact" and (b) it would risk turning this section into a "he-said-he-said" bunfight rather than a useful discussion. However, I must say that I am occasionally following this wiki entries in good faith--my role in and knowledge of this situation came from journalistic research of the subject rather than as a rival linguist; I feel very strongly that my Globe and Mail article took care to present all dissenting viewpoints--it was not an editorial or criticism on my part; it was reportage. Enrico's non-literary, scientific translations were pointed out as a different kind of translation--"apples and oranges" is one quote that figured in the article. in fact, I even took the extra and unusual step of going over with Bringhurst on the telephone every quote from him to use, reciting the context to him, and allowing him to clarify his wording when applicable so that he could feel his points and defense of this detractors were properly and completely conveyed in the article. That's a NPOV. (As indicated in this article, all sides have very valid points in what they're doing and why they're unhappy about things.) I do not think it's a NPOV to editorialize in such a way that minimizes or dismisses the detractors. That said, I realize it's hard for either you or me to know for sure if we are being "objective". I've been open about how I became acquainted with this issue; I'm curious how you came to it or whether you know any of the principals involved. I'm quite open to continuing a lively conversation and however it might seem, I do want to adhere better to Wiki protocol (I'll work on that. I see the problem with "citing oneself" and I'll learn the protocol before I do that again, but I believe you know i'm not trying to hide anything, since my user name is so close to my real name.). And please take my word that I, like you I presume--would like to maintain cordial respectfulness, open-mindedness and humility with the aim of presenting a balanced, information text on a complex and highly charged issue. Cheers, --Adele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.1.75 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawlangs (talk • contribs)

Amweder, the point I'm making is that if the fact wasn't published, then it's simply not verifiable and has no place on wikipedia. If you culled the information from your article, and it hasn't been published elsewhere, it's off the table. Frankly, even if the IJAL retracted Leer's review under legal threat, I would still believe their published reasons for retraction. It's a bit absurd to think the University of Chicago would bow to unfounded legal threats from a grant-funded Canadian academic. All, of course, speculation and hearsay until there's a published source to point to. Similarly, with his education, I'll go with published bios over unverifiable statements of fact. Even if he has no formal training in linguistics, he has since been recognized for outstanding contributions in the field of linguistics (see the Sapir Prize info). Although he says in your article he's never called himself a linguist, that hasn't stopped the academic linguistic community from labelling him as one.

As to your article, I can't agree that it was written from a NPOV, at least not the way Wikipedia defines it. You wrote it to give voice to a minority group's criticisms, which is an important function of any newspaper. To do so, you gave far more weight to those criticisms than to the overwhelmingly positive reactions in the rest of the press at the time. I'm not saying this was a bad thing, merely that NPOV on wikipedia means that the majority's voice and opinions get primary attention, and minority opinion gets less (or none at all in some cases). The printed discourse moved on after your article. Enrico's web page was taken down, Leer's review was retracted, and Bringhurst wrote two more positively reviewed volumes in the Masterworks of the Haida Mythtellers trilogy. These claims can be cited, and reflect negatively on the detracting evidence.

It is not editorializing to cite published material. To editorialize is to comment or opine, and my opinions are not what minimized or dismissed Bringhurst's detractors. Nowhere in the article (that I'm aware of) do I make a unbacked claims. I let unchallenged, published facts stand, and I include relevant challenges to published material where I could find them. The weight of published material is pro-Bringhurst, and facts don't violate NPOV. Quite frankly, the only editorializing I see here is yours. I would strongly suggest you read Nicholas R Bradley's article Remembering Offence, written in 2007 (citation in the article) because I feel it does a great job examining the controversy surrounding the publication of A Story As Sharp As A Knife with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. He's not exceptionally pro-Bringhurst, but he is uncomfortable with the extent of criticisms levelled at him in 1999.

Objectivity is impossible. Everyone has a bias. I can tell that you aren't particularly happy with what Bringhurst did, which I have no issue with. I believe that he's done more good than harm in this field. I like the trilogy. I like his poetry. I've met the man, I like him too. That being said, please believe that I can be swayed by weight of evidence. I've reviewed everything I can get my hands on regarding this topic, and I haven't suppressed any sources or views. I feel strongly that the article as it stands accurately reflects the facts of the controversy, and that both sides are represented in accordance with WP:UNDUE.

--Rawlangs (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. --Rawlangs (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

Hello, Amweder. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Rawlangs (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as noted previously, I really do not have the time (i have a full-time job plus family responsibilities) at this moment to learn all the ins-and-outs of WIkipedia protocol and correct the inaccuracies and potentially defamatory statements as they pertain to my cited article, but may I pose a question that might be beneficial all around: if the Globe and Mail article was, as the contributor Rawlangs argues, basically refuted, discounted and deemed irrelevent because it reports just a minority of complainants and its fact-checking is not presumed---then why bother citing it at all in the Wikipedia article? If it's not a valid, viable and factual text, then why cite it in Wikipedia? Why do we not simply remove mention of it? -AmwederAdele Weder 04:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)