Talk:Harry L. Williams

NPOV

This read like it was written by Williams' press agent. Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Orange Mike. I've been away on other projects, and just now saw your comment. Are there any particular points, "trigger phrases", etc. that spurred your comment here? In the interest of full disclosure, and as I've already fully disclosed to Wikipedia, I'm a paid subcontractor who does various projects for the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, of which Harry L. Williams is president and CEO. I've previously advised them on any pushback I've received thus far. Obviously, I'm trying to please them, but most assuredly want to stay within your documented guidelines to avoid any disputed content. Your help is very much appreciated, to say the least!     Sigridtx (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Source no longer available

@Sigridtx: Please don't remove citations from articles (like you did here here) simply because a source is "no longer available". Doing so isn't really in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:DEADREF. A cited source doesn't automatically lose its value simply because it's no longer available online because of the following: (1) sources cited in articles aren't required to be available online per WP:PUBLISH; and (2) the source could've been archived, and an archived version of it is available online. If you're unwilling or unable for whatever reason to find an archived version of the source yourself, you can add the template Template:Dead link to the source instead of removing it; just follow the instructions on the template's page. This template will add the article to a maintenance category with other articles which have "dead" references, and there are WP:BOTs and other users who work through this category trying to "revive" these sources. I know you're trying to help while navigating your COI/PAID connection, and that you did also add a replacement source; it's still probably best, though, to leave the source that was originally added as is but tagged accordingly instead.

@Theroadislong: Since you added the {{Failed verification}} for the particular bit of article content, perhaps you could take another look at it when you have the time given the archived version of the original I found and the new citation added by Sigridtx. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance @Marchjuly. To your note regarding "eventually converting the latter to the former or move them to External links", I take it you're referring to the citation I added today, correct? Also, you'll see that this article is disputed, so I'm in the process of working to make this more neutral, which includes ensuring any accomplishments (neutrally presented) are supported by disinterested, reliable sources. I'll make sure I don't change any existing links. But related to my question earlier here, I can add a new citation to content not already cited, correct? I appreciate your help! Sigridtx (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sigridtx: If you're referring to this edit summary I left regarding WP:GENREF, then that was about the source being cited in Harry L. Williams#General. The "citation" appears to have been added here as part of an edit made by an IP account in March 2024. I don't know whether that was you, some random person, or someone else editing the article on behalf of Williams (it's actually not so important as to who did it per se), but it wasn't added as an WP:INCITE. Whoever added it just embedded it into the "References" section without indicatiing which article content it's intended to support. This could've been done by someone not understanding how to properly add a citation to a Wikipedia article, someone who didn't understand the difference between a citation and an external link, or someone who intended it to be a "general reference". Ideally, general references should either be converted to a inline citation, external link or even perhaps a WP:FURTHERREADING type of entry as an article is expanded or at some other point once they've been assessed depending on whether the source cited is considered reliable and actually can be used to cite specific article content. I think the site the IP linked to probably falls under WP:ELYES, but others might consider it a WP:RS that can be used to cite some specific article content; for that reason, I compromised and treated it as a "general reference".

As for your other question, as long as you follow the guidance in WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement, you sould be OK: you should understand, though, that even properly declared COI and PAID editing is viewed quite suspiciously by many others. So, you might want be overly cautious and re-declare your PAID status in your edit summaries or even (perhaps better?) simply just make an WP:EDITREQUEST whenever you want to make an edit (even just to add a citation) since doing so might save you some grief. I don't, however, suggest that you yourself remove the {{Npov}} template added to the top of the article since that's almost certainly going to receive some blowback even if you'd be right in doing so (not making a judgement either way here). That is definitely something you should either propose here on the article's talk page, or seek assistance with at WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN. That template was added by a Wikipedian named Orangemike; so, you could propose removing the template and WP:PING Orangemike to the discussion if you want to ask them for a reassessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)