Talk:Hugh "Skip" McGee III

That letter

Can we please keep this as a balanced biography, rather than a soapbox to repeat a 3-year old furore? Fences&Windows 02:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

By all means expand this biography if you like, citing reliable sources of course to substantiate your additions. Do not however continue to wantonly censor explication of an incident that you find personally troubling. McGee's bizarre screed ("that letter") and its aftermath were not unduly emphasized in the article, as a Google search will confirm. His outburst was unexpected and disproportionate, and confounded even his supporters. It is of course an important element of his biography, in its way as illuminating as the limp resume that pretends to describe his professional career.

Reporting a well-known, well-documented incident is not scandal mongering ("something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip", per WP:NOTSCANDAL). It is absurd to claim that the incident is given undue weight in the article when the results of a search for "skip mcgee" are dominated by articles that document and analyze it. ("Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.", per WP:UNDUE). It is disingenuous to delete the references that demonstrate the WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:No original research of a passage, as required by WP:Biographies of living persons, then cite WP:BLP to justify excision of the passage itself, as you did in this edit. And of course, there is no compelling reason to omit the names of McGee's children from his biography, though Tom Hanks and Paul Simon might applaud your innovation.

If you don't like the news, son, then just put down the newspaper. Don't complain that an article isn't balanced because you dislike the content - as WP sees it, "neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." (per WP:Balance) Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the AfD discussion, you'll find the only reason the article is here at all is because I rewrote it. Do your homework and don't be so damn condescending. BLP says that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". WP:BLPNAME says "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.". Please do carefully re-read our BLP policy as you seem unfamiliar with it. I'll go to BLPN now for outside views. Fences&Windows 21:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean "damned condescending", don't you, as in "do your homework" or "please do carefully re-read our BLP policy as you seem unfamiliar with it"? (Well aware of the tendency - thank you for reminding me.) Actually the article is here because WP:SPA User:Lyons1024 had a bee in his bonnet in re this very incident [1], and because you provided WP:RS for it after User:Yworo and User:Off2riorob gutted it of all unflattering content [2] and Off2riorob dispatched it to AfD for burial [3]. Unlike so many advocates at AfD, you did actually rework the article to incorporate those references. (Thank you.) However, the article would still be here, ruinous, if you hadn't. In any case, it's WP:NOTYOURS [4].

There are no "titillating claims" in the text you excised. You've again either misunderstood or misapplied the WP policy you've invoked. McGee himself is of course the ultimate (primary) source of all claims in the section as he is the author of the letter that touched off this controversy. McGee has never disavowed the letter, only expressed his regret that it escaped into the public domain, so those statements and the references that support them are all well-founded. Perhaps you understood "titillating" to mean "prurient", but there is no WP:BLP policy to suppress provocative content that is WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR as the disputed text is (supra). Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(OK, I did have a bit of fun at your expense just now, but I'll stop; no doubt after a bazillion edits it stopped being amusing to you about half a bazillion edits ago. I do though hope you'll elaborate your reasoning, because I really don't see support in the policies you've cited. I'll be over to whatever-that-thing-is to give my reasons why the section you've eliminated is a valuable part of this biography.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute about inclusion of sections

Hello. I see we have a dispute over what should be included in the article. However, the sections that you wish to not include are very well sourced from reliable sources and are fine to include. If there are certain sentences that you believe are violating our biographies of living persons rules, you are free to take them out individually, however, not whole sourced sections. I will undoing your edit shortly to its original state. Please discuss changes here before reverting back. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 23:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it again - Its a BLP - please seek consensus to reinclude this disputed gawker sdourced tittilation - adding the same size content about it as his careeer gives it undue weight in his life story. Youreallycan 03:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at: BLPN June 2010 and AfD June 2010 and BLPN January 2012. The current issue concerns this edit which is not in accord with how BLP articles are written. First, there is no need to name the three children—it's trivia and intrusive. Yes, the info is on the public record, but it is fundamental to WP:BLP that not everything on the Internet is needed in an article. Second, the edit changes NPOV text like "criticising the school's administration" to "McGee attacked the school's administration". That is followed by several details that appear in news reports and blogs, but which are not reasonable as a permanent record in a biography because they are WP:UNDUE. We get it—some absurd statements were made. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs with undue coverage. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We may simply change that one sentence and other sentences to speak less "blog-like". Also, for his kids, other businessmen have their children listed such as, Kirbyjon Caldwell, Rolla Bigelow, and August Belmont IV, just to name a few. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 02:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugh "Skip" McGee III. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150315020914/http://www.princeton.edu/bcf/about/advisors/bios/ to http://www.princeton.edu/bcf/about/advisors/bios/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)