Talk:Deborah James (activist)

October 2014

This is a strange page. Of the several economists with whom I am somewhat familiar who work at the CEPR, James had largely eluded my attention. Not surprisingly, because she apparently has been working for the past decade with Global Exchange. And because she isn't an economist. James' public contributions seem to be in the area of journalism, on HuffPo; making her a strange candidate for a wikipedia entry when some CEPR economists don't have one.

This page seems to focus on her previous job a decade ago, with another organization I had never heard of, funded - apparently insufficiently - by the Venezuelan government. This focus is highly suspicious, suggesting the page is designed not to describe James' life's work, but as a strange red-baiting sort of smear against James. This would seem to violate the neutral POV principle.

By ignoring the bulk of what James work is (focused on the WTO and international trade), and instead highlighting a decade-old job to prove guilt by association, this page seems clearly malicious and of little value, except perhaps to put her current employer in a bad light. I recommend it be deleted.

"Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons)

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Joefranks72 (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The article was not created as for what you accuse me of. Please have good faith. I only ran across her information and created a small page since there was enough for an article. This article was not made because James was affiliated with any organization. This article was only created because she was a notable candidate for an article as being the director of multiple organizations and because she is still active. I will add more about her in the future but this is far from a "smear". Since I am active on multiple articles, I do not have time for adding every detail when creating an article. I provided an outline that is quite balanced; 4 lines (according to my screen size) about her time with Global Exchange, 5 lines about her time with the VIO and two lines about the CEPR. You are correct that there is not much about her and the CEPR, she is not an economist but the Director of International Programs and is listed as part of their current staff. But she still plays an important role since the organization studies both economics and public policies, as they are involved in international policies, she would play a vital role. I know that she has been involved more with Global Exchange than any other organization. I will return to this article soon with more information. Please add more information to this article if you like as I am involved in quite a few articles.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

ZiaLater, you are fooling no one with your cries of innocence. It is obvious from your recent contributions that you are trying to substantiate a connection between the Venezuelan government, by way of the Venezuela Information Office, and the CEPR, which you are seeking to discredit, first by repeating the unfounded allegations of right-wing opinion sources, and now by playing up the importance of Deborah James, in order to prove some guilt by association. It is up to you to demonstrate good faith by desisting from your current politically motivated campaign. --Riothero (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Riothero, as I read through more sources, I add to articles and create new ones. Please stop making such accusations as this will get us nowhere in editing. Instead of crying POV all the time and deleting, try adding more sources to make it neutral. It does not hurt to put effort into an article and actually look up sources. I have given a fairly good outline for this article, it just needs more information and a little bit of polishing up.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

COI tag

IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for removing reliably sourced information, and please review WP:COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This simple reference to the COI policy is not enough to warrant the COI tag. Your issue seems to stem from a minor content dispute, when Template:COI makes it clear that the tag is only appropriate when there are "significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality." I don't see that.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a COI, POV edit; you are free to restore the content if you don't agree with the tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, a simple disagreement over a one-sentence statement on her writing an article (of no importance that I can see) and it has no secondary source—a minor content dispute if there ever was one. Can you identify a significant neutrality issue due to this other editor, per the template's policy?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kriswarner has been involved in many edits about his former employer and fellow employees. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers." Pretty obvious there would be a relationship going on here.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I read this wrong. I'm on the fence on whether the tag should be there. I need a nap.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked and don't see any acknowledged connection between this editor and James or CEPR. Even if there is one, the COI tag only applies if the editor's actions have created significant neutrality issues for the article in its current form, which no one has established yet.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just some background Mbinebri, here is a sock puppet invesitgation involving Mark Weisbrot and the potential COI who was recently involved on CEPR related articles who admitted to being a former employee of CEPR is Kris Warner, a former Program Assistant. Hope this helps!--ZiaLater (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't "admit" anything after someone else pointed it out, I said it straight from the start. Kriswarner (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This time around, that is, when the CEPR-IS-ONLY-ABOUT-VENEZUELA!!!! crowd showed up. I wasn't aware of many of wikipedia's policies when I first starting trying to get all the bias out of these articles. Kriswarner (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Look at the history of the text-blanking in this article (indeed, every article related to CEPR), and the histories of the editors involved (which is all easily found on Wikipedia). Of course, preferable to having a COI tag on the article would be for those blanking the article to allow it to be written; there is an abundance of sources. But as long as COI/SPA editors don't allow the article to be written, the COI tag is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's not be melodramatic. The page has never been blanked and no one is stopping you from editing the article. This other editor has made some minor removals based on concerns over weight, relevance, and source misrepresentation, with edit summary explanations in good faith. In fact, I only see one direct revert and one indirect revert. None of this amounts to serious neutrality issues—just minor content disputes. With that in mind, you claim an "abundance of sources" but in the edit you linked to above as (unconvincing) evidence of a COI, the removed claim is cited with only a primary source. Do you have a secondary source for it to establish the content's importance? If there is one, why not add it? That would make this all irrelevant. If you have no secondary source, then removing the content is arguably valid and the COI tag's inclusion just looks like the result of you being unhappy that you didn't get your way.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Let's" is plural: please speak to only your own emotional state. Once again, the article history, and the histories of the editors involved, is public record. When article disruption ends and status is determined, editing might resume-- I have no interest in edit warring with COI SPAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You also have no interest in trying to present a neutral point of view. My edits aren't "disruption," they are maintaining some semblance of reason and balance in this entry. This is also public record. Kriswarner (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you both are talking about James' publication, you can look at this from the Marxist magazine Political Affairs which calls James a "Venezuela expert" who's publication "tells a shocking tale of US intervention in Venezuela’s democratic process, examines a series of myths about Venezuela, and offers an explanation of the real concerns underlying the Bush administration’s antagonism towards Venezuela" and that "it also offers US citizens some concrete ways we can get involved". There is also this book that explains that James also focused on some of the work by Eva Golinger in her publication.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's been awhile and Sandy has yet to provide any example of bias in the article. Furthermore, this discussion on the COI template's talk page addresses the issue of an editor's apparent/supposed COI versus the neutrality of the actual content. Examples from different editors:

• "If the content is neutral, then the tag is not warranted, despite the COI."
• "The template also says that there may be NPOV problems. I don't think the template is added unless such problems are evident in the article."
• "Put another way: If the article is (to the best of your knowledge) reasonably neutral, then you should not put this tag on it, no matter who wrote it."

Could it be any clearer that the tag does not belong without clear neutrality issues in the article, regardless of accusals of COI?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has a good point about the history of targeted blanking in order to change the article's POV - that affects most articles touching on CEPR or on Venezuela's recent history & politics. bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep ... the issue occurs with any articles related to CEPR. I have been traveling and away for more than a week and see that the COI tag has been removed, with some unnecessary remarks added to this talk page. Should the COI editing resume, the tag should be reinstated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deborah James. 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/20150319220615/http://www.cepr.net/index.php/staff to http://www.cepr.net/index.php/staff/

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

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deborah James. 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/20150402135020/http://www.globalexchange.org/events/speaker/deborah-james to http://www.globalexchange.org/events/speaker/deborah-james
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018220636/http://www.globalexchange.org/events/speaker/deborah-james to http://www.globalexchange.org/events/speaker/deborah-james

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)