Misplaced Pages

Talk:James Heilman

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) at 03:13, 30 January 2014 (→Two Canadian psychologists: RS does not guarantee it is important to include in an encyclopedia. A frivolous complaint is not appropriate for a BLP.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:13, 30 January 2014 by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) (→Two Canadian psychologists: RS does not guarantee it is important to include in an encyclopedia. A frivolous complaint is not appropriate for a BLP.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCanada Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Just saying

Noting the gratuitous tagging of "connected contributor", since James Heilman has not edited this article; the article was created by Jinkinson (talk · contribs · logs) and to this point, has only been edited by him/her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Does Dr. Heilman's general notability arise from his work as a emergency room doctor, from his controversial additions to a single Misplaced Pages article, from his "improvement of Misplaced Pages's health-related content" in general, or from the combination of all three? Does he dress, as pictured, for only one of these important roles ? I think we should be told. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification

This edit did not verify the claim. The part gained recognition also failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I added "gained recognition" in this edit, which was to fix an obvious error. But in hindsight I can see that wasn't the best solution. Ocaasi beat me to fixing it (). Adrian J. Hunter 00:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2009, he was involved in a "controversy"? The source does not say that. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi QuackGuru. I think you are mistaking Verifiability with requiring an exact semantic match. I don't mean to sound pedantic here, but I'm just going to cite you the definition of controversy: "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." If you examine the sources, CBC and NY Times specifically, you'll see that this series of events involved extensive debate, anger, disagreement, and public discussion. The very fact that the media covered the debate indicates its controversial nature, but especially in combination with the focus in the sources on anger and disagreement. So what the sources describe is by definition, a controversy. We need the text to be backed up by a reliable source, but as writers we sometimes substitute words which summarize what the sources are saying. In this case, the word controversy, as defined, is consistent with the sources, and thus passes verification. Cheers, Ocaasi 06:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, the sources do not verify the claim. This did not rise to the level of a controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you're misreading the sources, basically. Why don't we let some others chime in. Cheers, Ocaasi 18:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You still have not provided verification but you have removed the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The translatorswithoutborders.org website is not a reliable source and the additional sources did not verify the claim

The new source did not verify the claim and the addition of another source did not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The NY York Times ref does not verify the claim but the tag was removed without fixing the probems. The who source says "As mentioned, we are working on a collaborative effort with Translators Without Borders to translate 80 priority English-language articles into as many other languages as possible." This does not verify the entire sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the article that does not mention James Heilman at all. QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This recently added source failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The current text: "Heilman is part of an initiative through Wiki Project Med Foundation with Translators Without Borders, working to improve and translate the top importance English Misplaced Pages medical articles into minority languages."

From the source: "The articles are being prepared so they can be translated — with the help of Translators Without Borders — into as many languages as possible, particularly in the developing world."

The current text in the article is not fully supported by the secondary source and there remains a primary source. The word "English" may or may not be true. I was unable to verify that word. Translators Without Borders may be translating articles from other languages other than English. The current text could be wrong when the source does not make this clear. We don't need a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Wikimediafoundation.org website is also not a reliable source

The are multiple problems with this article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, the Wikimedia Foundation website is not a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Both sources are not reliable

See this diff. Having to use unreliable sources throughout the article shows the subject is not notable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi QuackGuru. I'm sorry you disagree, but I can't really have a discussion with you if you don't respond to the points I made in each edit summary along with the sources and changes. You'll have to get some others to weigh in at this point. Cheers, Ocaasi 20:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You have not removed the unreliable sources such the Wikimediafoundation.org and translatorswithoutborders.org sources and there is still text in this article that fails verification.
Berko, Lex (2013). "Medical Students Can Now Earn Credit for Editing Misplaced Pages". Vice. Retrieved 12 January 2014.
Trujillo, Maria (25 November 2011). "Misplaced Pages and Higher Education – The Infinite Possibilities". University of British Columbia website. Retrieved 9 January 2014.
Both sources are unreliable. The tags were removed but the sources were kept. There is no reason to keep unreliable sources in a BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Something published by the University of British Columbia is in fact reliable, and I've seen lots of other reliable sources in the article like New York Times, National Post, CBC or The Guardian. De728631 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY

The notion that the New York Times is somehow a primary source is risible. I've taken the tags off of those citations until a credible argument is made for their inclusion. Roccodrift (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Misplaced Pages a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.
See WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
The article along with the other articles were close to the event. Please find secondary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Eh, no. Ordinary journalistic work in the form of a journalist interviewing people, attending events they report from etc. is not primary sources. This is not what is meant by "close to an event" as long as the journalist is independent of the people he interviews etc. Iselilja (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Roccodrift and Iselilja. The New York Times articles are clearly secondary sources. They draw from primary sources, including quotations from involved parties, but that does not make them primary sources. An account written by Heilman of his experiences would be a primary source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Trim down of Rorschach thing

Looks like this article will stay. I had trimmed down the Rorschach thing to use summaries instead of big quotes, see the version here. It might be useful, feel free. Zad68 03:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A summary is much better than the current version. Thanks for the link to the summarised version. QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your characterization that it is undue coverage; the number of citations in that paragraph clearly indicates that he achieved substantial notability from this event. Nonetheless, I have summarized the key points and reduced the word count. I did not remove the template, as I figure there should be more discussion on the matter before it is removed. Currently, there are four sentences in that section, and I think that's quite reasonable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Zad about the quotes and thanks Ninja for the more summary encyclopedic style. I've removed the tag as the sources indeed cover this incident and Heilman's role in it extensively compared to other subjects. It's not a WEIGHT violation when the sources cover it more too. Ocaasi 13:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The part "involved in a controversy" and "extensive debate" is repetitive. I think the section requires further cleanup. That text must also be balanced. QuackGuru (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation overkill

This is too many sources at the end of one sentence. See WP:OVERCITE. Let's keep the top three sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Two Canadian psychologists

"In August 2009, two Canadian psychologists filed complaints about Heilman to his local doctors' organization; Heilman called the complaints "intimidation tactics." "

The frivolous complaint does not belong in an encyclopedia. Adding images to Misplaced Pages is not relevant to his profession of being a doctor. I don't understand what is the point to including this text. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Saskatchewan is the body that allows him to work in the real-world. The fact that an editorial decision on Misplaced Pages resulted in a real-world complaint to his professional body creates a chilling effect on anybody else who contributes. As a professional who enjoys participating on Misplaced Pages this fact is anything but frivolous. Ian Furst (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
As an editor who edits Misplaced Pages how is this complaint relevant to his job. Editing Misplaced Pages is not related to being a doctor. So it was indeed a frivolous complaint. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Heilman is notable for being a doctor who edits Misplaced Pages's medical content. It couldn't be more related that he was targeted at his job as a doctor for something he did while editing Misplaced Pages. Ocaasi 20:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The New York Times wrote an article about the event. A brief summary of the article is proper. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The issue here is if the complaint had any merit or is it related to his job. No evidence has been given that the complaint had any merit. A frivolous complaint is not encyclopedic for an encyclopedia, especially for a BLP page. His job and editing Misplaced Pages are two separate things. RS does not guarantee it is important to include in an encyclopedia. Editing Misplaced Pages has no direct relation to his workplace. For a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, if we cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. The complaint or incident is really not applicable to his job. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

'United States District Court of California'

The name of the court used in the text is inexact, since there is more than one district in California. The court which did the dismissing was the United States District Court for the Central District of California (not to be confused with the other federal court in California, which is the Northern District). So I suggest that we replace the name of the court in the text with 'a federal court in California', which could if necessary be wikilinked to the full name of the Central District court. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Which source says "The suit was dismissed...? QuackGuru (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a primary court document here, which was only cited in User:Zad68's draft of this article. I'm hoping that there are other sources to justify the 'dismissed' conclusion. There is a confusing mixture of state and federal venues. I don't have knowledge of what happened to the suit but I'm arguing that we shouldn't attribute whatever action was taken to a nonexistent federal court. EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the text with "In February 2013 the parties settled their litigation." QuackGuru (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that solves the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Ed. To be clear, in coming up with that version you linked to, I only copyedited what was there and I didn't add any sources. I don't know how that primary source court document got in there. But looks better now. Zad68 13:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Unless they have a clear consensus, I'd like to call for a moratorium on cleanup templates on this article. I applaud QuackGuru's diligence in seeking to make sure that the sources pass muster, but I think he needs to relax a bit and reread the associated policies and guidelines before applying more cleanup templates. I find his use of cleanup templates to be perplexing and contrary to policy. For example, he called a New York Times article a primary source, has argued that a small paragraph with multiple citations is undue coverage, and has now tagged another New York Times citation as having failed verification when it says almost exactly what we're reporting in the article. Enough cleanup templates for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
Categories:
Talk:James Heilman Add topic