Talk:Richard F. Colburn

Deleting the controversy section

isn't it about time the person editing from a state government IP be reported to the media, tagged as a vandal, or banned by wikipedia for repeatedly deleting the well-documented controversy section about colburn? 12.187.236.194 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

Easternshorebuff desires the controversy section be be completely removed as "not relevant to this page". I have asked him to expand on his request, and that we should discuss his request here. David (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This user has deleted the section again, and I've restored, but will not restore again, as to avoid an edit war. I believe the section should remain, but request input from others as to their opinion. Thank you. David (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

it's good you're not edit-warring, but that section has some serious BLP issues. The first paragraph is unsourced. The third seems to be sourced, but I'm not sure it's a reliable source. The fourth and fifth paragraph seem excessive, too. That doesn't mean the other editor should just delete it without giving a reason, but you should read the BLP guidelines before adding scandalous material. A trimmed-down, well-sourced section would be appropriate. --Coemgenus 20:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it could use work. I was not the original editor who added the information, only restored what user easternshorebuff deleted. David (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, I definitely agree without that complete deletion without discussion is not the answer. --Coemgenus 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna introduce a rehashed version of the Controversies section. Hopefully it'll be a little more concise but I'm happy with the sources. I imagine it will be unilaterally reverted as 'irrelevant' fairly soon but I'll give it a shot Bob House 884 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the "watermelon" section -- it was sourced to a press release, and I couldn't see that any WP:RSs had picked it up and run with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible alternate source for the "watermelon" section: David (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternate sources for the term paper controversy: David (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like those all came from about the same period -- is there any long-term coverage?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Does their need to be? Allegations must be 'notable, relevant, and well-documented' and this one is surely? Notable for significant coverage in local sources and the Washington Post, relevant since it directly relates to his legislative activities and resources and well-documented due to numerous RSs as have been given. The latest source indicated (18/04/05) is dated almost a month after the Baltimore Sun's article (22/03/05) - which seems like relatively long term coverage for a political 'scandal' in any case, unless political stories are only to be considered worthy of inclusion if they still make for watercooler talk 6 months down the line. Bob House 884 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)