Talk:Frank Hanna III

Criticism

I restored the text re "Criticism" for the reasons in the edit summary. A prior editor unilaterally removed this factual and important info, which requires, at a minimum, inclusive discussion on whether to keep or not. I hope we can resolve this matter on this page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure if what you stated in your edit summary rv again the Hanna edit re Atlanta Blue Cross/Blue Shield, etc. is accurate, to wit: "because BLP requires multiple ind. sources for this". I looked but didn't locate any official directive that indicates this. I would greatly appreciate your pointing it out to me.

Also, I do now have three sources so far: [1], [2], [3]

I am not going to engage in an edit war. Can you just take a look at the sources I provided above. If they are acceptable, you can:

• Restore my edit
• Add the text yourself as you see fit
• Let me know either on my talk page or the Hanna article talk page how best to proceed in good faith

Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RMS: Thank you for your cordial tone. It was rude of me not to leave a note here on the talk page. I've copied above your substantive comment from my talk page for our easier discussion here. I hope you don't mind.

WP:BLP states that,

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. 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. 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 our 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. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

I have read the article in the Atlanta Progressive News, which is the sole source that you are citing here (all three sources you linked above are the same article by Betty Clermont, published on different websites). The claims it makes are interesting and they sound noteworthy, but I believe that the heightened concern about verifiability when we are talking about living people means those claims should stay out until we have another source independent of this APN article/Betty Clermont, and preferably from a less openly promotional source. I would assert that the Atlanta Progressive News is a questionable source, such as is described in the verifiability policy:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

Atlanta Progressive News is not obviously a reliable source for this sort of contentious information, nor is it particularly notable. It seems to be an ideologically oriented media outlet that openly promotes a particular point-of-view. If I am right, that the APN is a questionable source, it is unsuitable as a sole source of information for alleging someone's involvement in a "scandal." Furthermore, Betty Clermont's article on Daily KOS makes the "scandal" sound more like an ideological disagreement over for-profit healthcare and sub-prime lending than factual reporting about some genuinely notable scandal. If the so-called scandal was truly notable, there should be other people talking about it besides Ms. Clermont. I think that the Wikipedia:Criticism essay is correct about criticism sections, generally. Regardless of your view on article organization, I think that we need more sources on these claims before they go into the article. DickClarkMises (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RMS: After looking harder at your edits, I reverted your deletions of seemingly relevant information from reliable sources like the Readers Digest interview. I commend you for being the first to initiate a dialog here; if you think the material I restored should be deleted, let's talk it out. I also restored footnotes rather than keeping your in-line external links. I think the footnotes are far more useful, since they give the readers a quick idea of the reference material cited for the article without making them navigate away from the article. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Hanna 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/20131011152042/http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/1567/Nation%E2%80%99s-Top-50-Catholic-High-Schools-Announced.aspx to http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/1567/Nation%E2%80%99s-Top-50-Catholic-High-Schools-Announced.aspx

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) 04:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)