Talk:Nathan Harper

Nathan Harper III

I really respect and admire all your quality contributions to wikipedia GrapedApe, however the cited (by 2 and there are at least 2 other sources I've seen) facts pertaining to Chief Harper's grandson you keep removing is puzzling to me. As you stated in the edit summary it is "irrelevant" and yet at least 4 hard news, respected main-line journalists ran the story precisely because it involved then Chief Harper. For comparisons see:

• Hugh Rodham Bill_Clinton#Impeachment,
• Michael Lohan Lindsay_Lohan#Early_life_and_education
• Martha Mitchell John_N._Mitchell#Early_life
• Alexandra Pelosi Nancy_Pelosi#Family
• Caroline and Ben Mulroney Brian_Mulroney#Family
• Kwame Kilpatrick Carolyn_Cheeks_Kilpatrick#2010

What is also confusing to me is that it has been a part of this wikipedia article since August 2011: [1].

I somewhat understand how a family member is not you but it is unrealistic to apply that to an encyclopedia article, especially when at least 4 news organizations disagree and believe it is very relevant. There may be something I am missing here so I will await a response for a time, I can understand we need to be very careful with living bios associating family members deeds and misdeeds (and I wouldn't oppose a rephrasing or some word choice changes) but this was a very big deal in 2011, and was reported as such by several unbiased objective news organizations. It would be strange not to include it in some way on his wikipedia article. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• It raises WP:BLP problem, with respect to both grandson and the chief. While the Chief is indeed a public figure, the grandson is not. Also, the grandson's activities are unrelated to the Chief's tenure: he was not implicated in any way, nor is it really relevant to his biography. It's mere gossip. As for the relative longevity of its inclusion in this article, someone should have caught it. As for the other examples, some of those are mere gossip as well. Just because it appears other places doesn't make it OK here. On some specifics, the Hugh Rodham situation is different because he was actually relevant to Clinton's tenure as president (the pardon scandal); Michael Lohan and Alexandra Pelosi are both public figures.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply GrapedApe . . . again though, there are 3 hard news, investigative reporting non-biased media reports on the 2011 incident and all state in the headline ares the Chief Harper link (the Altoona Mirror story appears to be a copy of the WPXI text, though their editors did choose to run the story). I completely agree that BLP is unique among articles and all of us need to be extra careful in straying from any facts . . . as you put it "mere gossip".

Given the notifications on the page now if you wish to rewrite or even just blurb in a family section that Chief Harper is married to Cythnia and that his Grandson, Nathan III has been involved in a few arrests from 2007-2011 in which Chief Harper allowed the legal process to proceed without interference or something of that nature I wouldn't oppose a compromise such as that. Your comment about it being irrelevant with the items that lead to his resignation is better the more I think about it. To give complete fairness to this topic I decided to dig some more, however it seems Nathan III has also made regional and even national wire service news for 2007 and 2008 arrests, though not necessary to describe individually these should be cited with any rewrite of Nathan III:[2][3]

• • Given the volume of hard news stories in major media, not editorials or commentary in free or alternative publications or even On Q or NiteTalk opinion pieces but mainline hard investigative non-biased news pieces in multiple outlets all making the connection to the Chief on top, to me that is greatly more than "mere gossip" which in my mind denotes something more speculative and if printed or aired more of a talk radio or alternative weekly type medium that would never get additional mainline press. I feel strongly that this information needs to be included even if in brief blurb form. Such a compromise like that would be the best, but if you believe this should not be included at all I would want to know from some editor how specifically this is contrary to any part of BLP? I'm with you on applying it and agreeing with it even if other wiki articles misuse it or it hasn't been caught yet. I just don't see how its been crossed. My nutshell understanding of BLP is preventing defamation/libel either implied or overt, BLP co-exists with wiki uncensored, so if we have credible multiple sources and most especially court or law enforcement records than wikipedia can state the sun rises in the east, even if it the east is a relative. You may be right those other articles and the longevity may be in error, but to me the point was more that no one is correcting them (even one example who publicly sued a financial advertisement because of a baby defaming her) if its true (in multiple hard news citations) its not violating BLP was my understanding. Also how "Public figure" is defined or if it's even a standard, frankly there are many that have wikipedia articles that I would seriously contest, however in the most pure sense you become a public figure when a police officer has enough probable cause to place you under arrest, and even more public when those charges go through a trial, in that way Nathan III--though not at the level where one could make a case for a wikipedia article--is very much a "public figure" in the purest sense of the term. Don't mean to be long winded and please don't feel you have to answer every point, a compromise of a shorter blurb with all citations would be desirable. If this was just one dubious source or an opinion piece (truly "mere gossip") I wouldn't even consider it and honestly despite his recent press I feel Nate Harper was overall a good Chief. I will seek clarity to some of those questions though by any editor if I am requested not to add text to now 5 news articles, just to me it sets a bad precedence, where would one draw the line? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's really pretty simple, this article is about Nathan Harper I, it's not about his relatives. If Nathan Harper III meets our notability standards and there is enough material to create a proper biography of him, then he gets his own article. But he doesn't get coatracked into this article. The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there. Yworo (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Although what you state makes great sense Yworo it is most definitely not the practice of wikipedia (even the infobox for police official has a line for "relatives") so your statement although logical and commonsense Yworo doesn't resolve this matter at all. Nathan III is and has been noted on this article since summer 2011 either in infobox or text--and he remains along with Cynthia. In the spirit of compromise and resolution a small textual blurb about the Chief's family along with the information that his grandson was arrested more than once and the Chief did not interfere on his behalf, may be the fairest way to portray now 5 major media articles on the Chiefs link to Nathan III, again the media articles came out because of that link and declared that link very openly. BLP is extremely important but when faced with nearly a half dozen major credible non-opinion hard news stories all leading with the link to Chief Harper with "public" records than we are more in danger of violating wikipedia is not censored. If this story was relegated to some single or even two pop journalism talk shows or op-ed I wouldn't care, but when major media cover this over and over and there isn't even a blurb about it on "the link" between the two at wikipedia, it's very strange. Should the article revert back to the way it was, probably not, probably just a small one sentence mention along with Cynthia could be a reasonable compromise. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There is not going to be any compromise regarding an article about a living person. And please don't preach to me about what "the practice of Wikipedia" is. You may want to review my user page. I am telling you what the practice of Wikipedia is, and if you don't listen, you may well find yourself in trouble. I'm an editor with experience in dealing with BLP issues trying to prevent you from making some serious mistakes. I suggest you choose to listen. If you have sufficient sources, start an article on the grandson. The life events and troubles of the grandson are off topic in this article. One thing you should note is that in all the examples you give above, the relative is notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, and a relevant fact from that article is simply being summarized, with a link to that article and a citation. If and when there is an article, it can certainly be brought up for discussion again. Yworo (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong here yet have an honest sense of intimidation in some word choice, I have given a few hours to this statement, which I hope not to divert into further and will gladly rewrite this post upon reasonable request. We can all "participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users", apologies if my tone made this develop and please don't take this as an accusation. My thoughts on the content after further review of the suggested WPs and the expertise on application, which I do appreciate. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not one to prolong anything. Apology accepted and you will find mine on my talk page in reply to your comment there. Yworo (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)