Talk:Doug Thorburn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ɓ

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

For some reason, a namesake of this writer feels the need to add the fact that he is not the same person to this article and includes the fact in an intrusive, wordy and non-encyclopedic sentence in the first paragraph. This seems slightly odd to me since the article makes it perfectly clear who it is about. Any comments? StuartDouglas 09:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Inclusion of other people with the same name

This is a dispute about whether it is appropriate to include the fact that the subject of an article is not the same person as an unrelated editor who happens to share the same name. 12:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

The subject of this article is a writer who infiltrated (if that's not too loaded a word) the AA and then wrote books about his findings. An editor has registered on Wiki seemingly solely to add the sentence "The subject of this article is not to be confused with Doug Thorburn, writer, poet, sometime lawyer and recovered alcoholic one day at a time, of Boulder, Colorado." to the first paragraph of the article. The article makes it quite clear who its subject is and it seems to me to be a bad precedent to set, to allow anyone to add the fact that, shared name aside, they are not the same person as someone in a Wiki article. This is in addition to the fact that the added setnence is non-encyclopedic in tone. I considered moving the sentence to a Notes section or similar at the obttom of the article, but that does not really address the main issue of the fact that the entire edit is not required. This is not an area I have any experience in, and possibly I'm talking out of my hat, so any comments/guidance would be appreciated. 12:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that the person adding in that sentence is the person, but I may be wrong on that. If the other Doug Thorburn is notable, then that user shoul dcreate the article on him, to which we can turn that sentence into a disambiguation link. However, I see no reason for that sentence to be included. If that happens to be the editor's name, then that should belong in their userspace.--Wizardman 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement of Editor complained of"

Because of the tenets of Alcoholics Anonymous I must write this in hypotheticals I have never dealt with this before and appologize for my ignorance and any faux pas. Hypothetically, a writer, poet, sometime lawyer and member of AA who has read and practiced throughout the US and Canada has been made aware of the article about "Doug Thorburn" by other members of Alcoholics Anonymous. The attitude was one of suspicion because as has been noted, the subject "infiltrated" AA and some members of AA feel violated its tenets. However, hypothetically if one is within the organization and has to deal first with questions, comments and resentments concerning the article it substantially interferes with the helping process. The names are extremely unusual and for both parties to be writers is even more unique. It seems unfair to hold alcoholics to the same standard of understanding as the compainers. Anyone who knows alcoholics can understand they might be confused and what is obvious to the complainers is obviously not to some alcoholics as the confusion has happened. The goal of the subject, "Doug Thorburn" who in fact is admired by the "editor complained of" and the latter are the same; to help alcoholics. Does the edit further that goal? I hope so. 'Doug Thorburn, Boulder, Colorado'

• Just to be clear, I was in no way complaining about the editor, merely disagreeing about this specific edit. There's no personal animosity involved 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove: Non notable addition that no one would ever confuse, completely unnecessary. IvoShandor 12:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As an added note, see WP:NOT, such as WP:NOT#IINFO, and WP:NOT#BLOG. Wikipedia is not a free web host or blog nor an indiscriminate collection of information. If you need to inform your fellow AA members that you are not the person in this article you need to do that on your own website or by your means, not through Wikipedia. No offense intended of course. IvoShandor 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just bold and removed, btw I have never seen this article before (am neutral here). If that's no good then reinstate and keep the RfC up, otherwise you should cross it off on the list. IvoShandor 12:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks IvoShandor - I was hoping there would be a couple of opinions which we now have. I'll remove the RfC now. StuartDouglas 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP concern

How is it possible for the article to assert that its subject was not an alcoholic? or was not a legitimate member of AA.? I would think their definition of membership would make this impossible. Even if the author were to have asserted both of these in his book, he may have been a legitimate member nevertheless and chosen to say otherwise afterwards. DGG 03:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bigger question - how is THIS Doug Thorburn notable? If this article did not exist, the other Doug Thorburn would not have any reason to complain about being confused with him. And as far as I can tell, this article is not attributed to any reliable independent sources. PubliusFL 22:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, and one I hadn't really considered. He has published those books, but whether that's enough for WP:NN? Maybe not StuartDouglas 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, they're all published by "Galt Publishing," and Galt Publishing apparently exists only to publish the books of Doug Thorburn. Anybody can put out a bunch of self-published books. There don't seem to be any independent sources in the article. PubliusFL 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided - he does get multiple ghits other than for his books, though, and his books seem favourably reviews, so I'm inclined to think he scrapes through NN StuartDouglas 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)