Talk:Virginia Haussegger

Edit dispute re quote about being ashamed to be an Australian

An anon IP editor - 220.... - is insisting on adding a quote to the article about the subject. The problem is that the subject says it isn't true, and the source being used by our anon IP is the website of her opponents in this discussion. I don't know any of the history of this matter, nor whether our subject did or did not say what is alleged, but we have to base things on reliable sources. In the circumstances, it's hard to accept that the website of her opponents in this inevitably heated and emotional debate can be rated as a reliable source. It's certainly not impartial. If another, more impartial source could be found, it would be a perfectly good addition, but given the rules at WP:BLP, I cannot accept this addition. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the source is not ideal, see WP:POORSRC - this source exists to promote a political point of view, and it's being used here to back up what could be considered criticism of the subject b/c of her opinions on that issue. Per wp:BLP I don't think this source is quite good enough and we should leave this out for now. Is there a better one? Hilo I don't want to imply you meant this, but there's a chance someone could read it this way so I want to comment that the fact that this editor is anonymous is completely immaterial. ErikHaugen (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The website used as the source for the information are not opponents of VH. There are no anti-Virginia Haussegger websites that I know of. The Australians for Constitutional Monarchy website was merely reporting what was said by VH at a public forum. I have no idea why you think that VH's own testimony of these events is more impartial than ACM's testimony. In fact her's is much less impartial. VH undoubtedly wants to protect her own reputation while ACM has no beef with VH per se. I can't use my own testimony as a source, why do you accept VH's? If I said, "I was at the forum and heard Virginia Haussegger say, "I am ashamed to be an Australian"", would that be accepted by Wikipedia? Why then should Wikipedia accept VH's claims about what happened and not ACM's (or for that matter, mine)? Is this another example of the left-bias that Wikipedia is so famous for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.191.82 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ErikHaugen - no, not intending direct criticism of our IP editor, but this issue does to some extent depend on who is really who and who really said what, so I think we need to be careful on that front.

I have no idea what this has to do with IP editors. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And to our IP editor, I think you are playing games a little with your logic. Clearly our subject is a supporter of a republic. The source is an opponent (the major opponent?) of a republic. Not the best source for reliability. That event was pretty widely reported. Can you find a better source for the quote? Remember that this is an article about a living person. Wikipedia can be sued if content is incorrect, HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

220.233.191.82 - Who is suggesting that we use VH as a source? I don't understand this: "I can't use my own testimony as a source, why do you accept VH's?" What are you talking about? ErikHaugen (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I have not been able to find a more reliable source for that information. I have looked but the forum was not, in fact, widely reported. I know what I heard. I don't think that Virginia Haussegger should be able to get away with editing out unflattering bits of her Wikipedia page, supported by the Wikipedia community. VH is simply not a more reliable source than ACM. She shouldn't be permitted to edit her own page, either. As for being sued, surely if VH wanted to be litigious, she would sue ACM, not Wikipedia. After all that's the source for this material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.191.82 (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Subjects are not prohibited from editing their own articles - see wp:COI. But even if it was, what are you talking about? ErikHaugen (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC).

I have no problem with VH editing her own article. My objection is to her editing away unflattering information based only on her own assertion without any outside source to back her view up.220.233.191.82 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Note

Guys, bear in mind that this page is under 'pending changes trial' anyway, so the IP's edits don't appear in the public version unless someone accepts the edit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's how I found it. Still though, the IP editor's edits should be accepted ASAP if they are appropriate, and discussed thoroughly if there is a dispute. They are good faith edits. And 3rr is still disruptive, even with PC. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about them being good faith edits. An editor using language like "I don't think (x) should be able to get away with editing out unflattering bits" is clearly not taking an WP:NPOV position.]] It also reads as if our editor was also at the conference being discussed - "I know what I heard". Those attending such events tend to go with preconceived positions, and its obvious our IP editor has a different view on the matter from the subject of the article and wants to discredit a supporter of the other side. HiLo48 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not convinced about them being good faith edits." - Then you assume they are. All of the circumstance you mention here absolutely needs to be set aside, and likewise the ip editor should make no assumptions about our politics. Please try to resolve this civilly. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not a supporter of either monarchy or republic and I'm not trying to discredit VH. I don't care either way about VH. I am quite sure that VH isn't ashamed to be an Australian and probably said what she said in the heat of the moment. However, I am concerned with her simply wiping this information from her Wikipedia entry because she doesn't like it. for muy part, I just wanted to add an interesting side-note to the article in order to provide more information about the subject. Remember, this edit war started with VH editing out information on her own page with which she wasn't happy. VH's reversion was based on her own assertion. My edit, on the other hand, was referenced using an outside source. This is a "he said, she said" thing. However, in this case one edit is based on an outside source and the other edit is based the subject's recollection. Because ACM is the outside source for this information it surely ranks higher in the reliability stakes than VH's self-image. If ACM's information is wrong, then VH can use all the powers available to her as a public figure to seek a retraction or to sue. If ACM's information is correct then VH should not be permitted to wipe it away from her Wikipedia page as a PR exercise.220.233.191.82 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't regard the ACM website as a reliable source when it comes to comment on those who oppose the ACM's point of view. If that is the only evidence we have for the quote, and VH denies it, I think that WP:BLP tells us to not include it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't consider VH a reliable source. So what happens now?220.233.191.82 (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep complaining about using VH as a source. I've asked you several times to clarify this complaint. In what way is the article using her as a source for anything remotely controversial right now? Is there something on that page that you are not convinced of that is being backed up by VH as a source? ErikHaugen (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User Georgiajay identified herself as VH when deleting my original (referenced) edit. Her summary of changes in the edits page said, "My name is Virginia Haussegger. I am the subject of this entry. I have corrected some incorrect bio detail and deleted a statement that said I was "ashamed to be Australian". I am certainly not!". This is the "source" which I keep talking about. I provided an external source (the ACM website) in my original edit. User Georgiajay simply identified herself as VH then deleted what I had written. Her deletion of my original entry is what I find controversial. Her statement in the summary of changes doesn't deny the claims made by ACM - it simply says that she is not ashamed to be Australian. She may very well not be, but that's not what she said at the republic forum at which she was a panelist. I am happy for Georgiajay (VH) to edit the page. But she cannot simply use Wikipedia to wipe away statments made by her at a particular event because she doesn't like the way it sounds in retrospect. In summary... my edit made clear that at a particular event VH said she was ashamed to be Australian. My edit was referenced. VH's deletion of my edit seems to be some form of PR exercise in which she deletes things she said in the past that she doesn't like the sound of now and without denying the factual basis of the original edit.

Ok, but she is not a source in the article. It doesn't matter if Georgiajay is VH or not (although conflict of interest would be good for her to read). We just consider Georgiajay's edits objectively. Her edit summary is not being used here to back up the removal of the text in the article in the way that you are using ACM to back up your edit. The comparison you are making is not valid, it doesn't matter how "reliable" in that sense wikipedia editors are. The text is being removed because "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source."(wp:BLP) And there are questions here about acm's reliability, since they are not independent, and independence is a critical component of reliability for our purposes here - "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective."(wp:IS) ErikHaugen (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)