Talk:Kathryn Holloway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 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]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

I don't know where to put this, quite frankly. The person who signed their messages "kathrynholloway" is not me. (I am Kate Holloway). But I have gotten emails regarding this because my email address is cited below ( i have removed it). However, I did not write the posts below signed by someone who claims to be Kathryn Holloway. Thank you. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.207.36.43 (talk • contribs) .

Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] unencyclopedic

I am concerned that this article is somewhat over-prosed . It's also mostly un-verifiable. As opposed to just going apeshit with the fact tag and what not, can we try to get the notable bits in and the not-notable bits out? I mean, really - "In 2002, disenchanted with Wall Street's values..." That's not encyclopedic. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the subject most famous for? Getting kicked out of the leadership? Leaving Wall Street (Was she on wall street? With what firm? I think she might have been a consultant, which is not Wall Street). Why was she kicked out of whatever she was kicked out of? There are serious flaws in this article that need to be adressed by someone who understands the point of it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Shame the disenchanted with Wall Street bit went. For me possible the most interesting bit in the article. (Yep I know its unverified) Oh well. --Salix alba (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also untrue. She never worked on Wall Street. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoops I meant Wall street's values, i.e. the whole big buisness finance system. --Salix alba (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relex Magazine

From the link to Relax mag it seems like only 7 articles by her appeared. Is this really worth including? --Salix alba (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, as it gives a fuller picture of her. If the article was much longer, than I would see the reason to remove it. But, I don't think its to big. It could probably be "fitted in" better. --Rob 09:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] further cleaning

I switched to using "<ref>/<references>" as they're more maintainable (e.g. you can move things around, without having to make redundant synchronized changes in the footnotes, to keep things in order). If anybody agrees its fixed, I request you remove the remaining cleanup/verify tags, or just remove/fix whatever section is still a problem. --Rob 09:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

THE ELECTION IS OVER. GET IT? SO NOBODY CARES ABOUT KATE HOLLOWAY NOW. NOBODY WHO KNOWS ANYTHING WILL COME FORWARD TO CLARIFY ANYTHING. IT'S ALL OVER. THIS PAGE SERVED ITS PURPOSE. I AM NO LONGER NOTABLE. The NOTA in NOTABLE stands for None Of The Above, which is what voters meant if they voted "green" in the election —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kathrynholloway (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Career Stuff and GPC Trolls

One of the references (now buried in the history, but I will dig it up) is to a University of Toronto MBA alumni newsletter that referred to her as being from the class of 1995, and to being a VP somewhere in the States, in Philly or Baltimore. That means her MBA and her job history was well verified. There were also articles referenced about the remarkability of CMGI rapid rise and fall. I agree that her business background as a senior executive is relevant as it unusual in a Green, and so we should not demote her to just "working for CMGI and Grey Global Group" when she was verifiably quite a senior executive - I would argue that all of the information in that section was originally well cited, well referenced and verifiable, and that some of it should go back. I will take a stab at it. Much got edited out during the afD deletions becaus it was too resume-ish and looked like a vanity page. As for why she was kicked out of the green party, the CBC interview (I saw it) preseented her as a whistleblower related to theparty's finances. The piece had all sorts of other Greens from the National Executive who had quit. I think that is a key part of her notability?notoriety? and why she is here. I think that the verifiable fact (as per the Ombuds report) that she wasn't given a reason is important. In terms of why she was kicked out, Hipocrite, it's also quite clear in the article that she said on television that she was kicked out because she had identified sketchy stuff going on the party that was not up to her standards as an elected officer. I would watch this page very carefully for trollish attempts to discredit or demote her- the Green Party of Canada is very troll infested indeed. They did their whole policy on a wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sisterwoman (talk • contribs) .


If you wish to have stuff like this:

"No reason was provided to her, in violation of the Party's constitution. She was denied a copy of the minutes of the meeting. "

Then, I think you will need to include an attributed quotation in the body of the article (not just a footnote). Then, show the opposite POV to balance it. Surely this is disputed by those involved. Much of the happenings of the events were in-person and oral. How can we verify them? How could we possible know if "No reason was provided to her". This isn't a session of parliament or city council where there's a reliable transcript of what happened. Also, in general, its always harder to verify something didn't happen, than proving something did happen. --Rob 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

From linked Ombuds comittee report

1.      Kate Holloway has appealed to the Ombuds Committee regarding the
failure of GPC Council to provide her with:
a)      written reason for a suspension from her elected position
as Fundraising Chair on GPC Council, and from all other committees of
council, to be reviewed by Council after six months,  and
b)      the detailed minutes of the in camera session of the GPC Council
teleconference meeting on January 16, 2005.

so it seems like the dispute was verifiably about being denied a copy of minutes. I'm bowing out now, I've wasted enough of my life on some silly dispute about a silly dispute about a person I've never heard of in a country I've never visited. Enjoy. --Salix alba (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathrynholloway

MESSAGE FROM KATE HOLLOWAY This page was clearly put up for political purposes during the Canadian elections (check the date). A page on me was simply moved over from openpolitics.ca in order to reach a wider audience. The same thing that happened there is happening here - people are trolling and other people think it's me doing it. This has and will cause me all kinds of grief (again). I am neither that clever nor that stupid. I have more important things to do while the planet is cooking around me then be distracted by something so self-serving and ridiculous as this exercise clearly is.

It is my profound and heartfelt wish that this page did not exist. It is very distracting and silly trying to speculate on who is really who. It is a waste of my precious time. If there is anything I can do to get this page deleted please let me know. If you are a friend of mine (as I suspect many of you are) and you have to do something sneaky to get rid of it please do. I don't want or need a wikipedia page about me. Most wiki activity is a complete waste of time and I feel the same way about wikipedians that I do about lawyers. They are pompous time vampires that should be put to work doing hard labour in siberia. I am really hoping to never be back here again before this page disappears into obscurity or is thankfully deleted, but if somebody wants to "verify" something email me- Kathrn Meghan Holloway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kathrynholloway (talk • contribs) .


[edit] Deletion

I am pretty new to wikipedia. What is the protocol after an afD "keep"? Does it matter if Kate does not think she is notable or does not want to have an article written about her? I guess not if she is really notable. Sorry if this is a stupid question. In general, if something gets kept after a "delete" does it ever get slated again? Would someone be so kind as to post the link to this information? I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to be asking this. Also, I would like to know how people sign their name. Thanks. If someone wants to talk about this with me on my "talk page" that would be cool if this is not the rightplace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sisterwoman (talk • contribs) .

I'll talk to you about this on your talk page. --Syrthiss 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get A Life

I don't know who is more stupid: The GPC people who completely failed in the last election to make any kind of difference, OR the Liberals who put this page up to trash the GPC and Jim Harris during the election, OR the pretentious wikipedia cultists who just showed up here to edit this and think they actually know who or what's "important" or who's "notable", or why. The only thing wikis are good for is saving hardworking greens from having meetings (See Living Agenda) or building policy across geographically vast locations like Canada (Living Platform).

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a vast circlejerk. I suppose it's actually "useful" for a fester of squabbling trolls to excuse their obsessive need to upload covers of men's magazines under fair use

I would suggest any small g green (meaning real green) "fans" of mine) (sisterwoman?) to ignore this page on me because it is utterly unimportant and utterly non-notable, and these "notability cops" are going to screw up any possible usefulness it might have with their ego-driven hack jobs.

What you should do if you like to edit is to keep publicizng non-Green Party environmental people and issues as you have to date.

Okay that's enough for now. (time vampires) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kathrynholloway (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Today's changes

  1. I moved the company to an external links section.
  2. Added GPC politician category.
  3. Open Politics.ca is not a reputable source per WP:V so I removed those references.

Ardenn 03:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for some more explanation. Can you explain what specifically you find that violates WP:NPOV? --Rob 04:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
A POV tag (which has been re-added), with no explanation on the talk page, or even edit summary, accomplishes nothing. It just makes the article look bad. If there's a problem you can fix, then fix it, if you can. If you can't fix it, then put the tag on, and *explain* what you think should be fixed. But, please, do help to fix it, if there is a problem. I will leave the tag on for now, but I don't think it should be tolerated (without an explanation) forever. --Rob 17:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You obviously fail to understand the POV-check tag. I don't need to have a specific complaint, I'm just asking for a neutral third-party who isn't involved with this article to give it a once-over to check that it is neutral. That is allowed, that is the point of the tag. Ardenn 17:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The tag itself says: "Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.". The directions for the tag states: "Place {{POV-check}} at the top of the suspect article, then explain your reasons on the talk page of the suspect article.". I think that's pretty clear advice, which should be followed. --Rob 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
While I don't see any specific problems with the article, my POV radar has been off lately, and I feel it needs a check. Ardenn 17:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
That is not a valid reason for adding {{POV-check}} to an article. The purpose of that template is for articles that display a POV that can be described by the editor adding the template. Forgive me, but I also find it difficult to trust the word of someone who has twice nominated this page for deletion (the second time quite controversially) as to the article being POV. —CuiviénenT|C, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 01:06 UTC
Fine, I'll go through the article with a fine tooth comb and list every POV grievance that I spot, even if I'm not entirely sure. Will that be better? Ardenn 01:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be much better. —CuiviénenT|C, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 01:22 UTC

[edit] POV

POV areas:

1. Controversy section - It's not verified, and could be considered original research.

2. It's also POV. It needs to be reworded to be more blanced, the controversy section that is.

3. Green Party work - Being outspoken is POV. Ardenn 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This word has been taken out Kourtjester 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


More POV/factual issues:

1. Controversy section - Just the title is POV. Ardenn 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. This issue was covered and investigated by the national media. It was objectively controversial. Kourtjester 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

2. I'm not satisfied with the validty of footnote 6.

3. "The memos show increasing levels of alarm from Holloway over a suggested method of incorporation of the party's finances, favoured by the party's Chief Agent and Executive Director, which Holloway argued would remove democratic control of the party's funds from the members. The party had recently achieved a strategic electoral breakthrough that won them millions of dollars in federal funding for the first time." - Editorializing Ardenn 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The memos indeed show increasing alarm, and are all fully available in the footnote. Please be specific as to why this editorializing. The party's breakthrough and subsequent funding are well detailed on the Green Party of Canada article. Kourtjester 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if the proper interpretation is that the memo shows increased alarm, we (as editors) have no business coming to that conclusion. We can cite somebody who has that opinion, but we can't analysis a memo like that, without doing original research. --Rob 03:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

4. "Holloway was an advocate of a more decentralized Green Party." - We cannot read her mind. Nothing to support it. Ardenn 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The National interview supports it, and is clearly cited. Kourtjester 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5. "In spite of her experience, she expressed broad support for the Green Party, without explicit plans to return to active participation. "It's not my party to represent right now," she said to the CBC, "but hopefully, young people, and professionals, will come forward and make this their Green Party, and give us a politics we can be proud of."" - It's all POV Ardenn 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not POV, it specifically quotes a verifiable CBC news interview. Kourtjester 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

6. "In May 2006 Holloway emerged as a supporter of Elizabeth May's leadership run for the Green Party of Canada, hosting a public event for May in Toronto days after May's announcement. Holloway is credited, along with Elio Di Iorio and British Columbia Green Party leader Adriane Carr, with working to bring May into the party." - Not cited, and POV. Ardenn 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the public event is verifiable. You asked for citations and edits, and an editor puts in the work to satisfy the requirement and add clarity. The nature of the controversy is well covered in the media and well cited. I would suggest that you have lost your objectivity on this article. Kourtjester 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
So have you, this is the only article that shows up in your contributions list for the most part. Ardenn 02:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't see how that casts any doubt on my objectivity. The request was made on this page for someone who had more information on the controversy to cite references and add balance to ensure that it's encyclopedic. I've included a reference to the Council records that I saw a long time ago, which show both sides the entire controversy, which have been available for over a year but which were not cited here. Those records have used by Carleton University's Journalism Dept as source material for an academic publication on the Green Party. As I said, this whole issue was covered by the media and is very well cited. It's public information and certainly encyclopedic -- I would suggest that you make appropriate edits to what you don't agree with, back them up, and let the article be. It's old news. I certainly have better things to do. Kourtjester 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Party Ombuds Report on Suspension

Hi guys. I put in a reference to the Green Party Ombuds Report on the process of Kate's suspension. It verifies much of this detail and should have been there all along. Hope this helps clear up any perceived POV issues. Memahb 03:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/t/Talk%7EKathryn_Holloway_edb4.html"