Talk:Bruce McKay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
I deleted the "Controversy" section and other biased comments and unsourced facts. I realize that the controversy is part of the story, but this page is a bio of the deceased officer. Perhaps the anonymous editor whose prose I deleted should make a Liko Kenney page, or a page on the incident for historical purposes. pointlessforest 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've attempted to expand and clarify the stub entry, sourcing it overwhelmingly to what seems to me the most reliable, verifiable source available, the AG's official report and findings. My intent has been to keep the entry focused on its subject, Officer McKay, and in what I would sincerely hope is an appropriate tone. Wikipedia, in my understanding, requires that an entry in effect justify its existence by referring to what is by Wikipedia criteria its 'notability', thus my inclusion of a section as to the controversy. I would sincerely hope that I've presented the information fairly, neutrally, and honorably, as well as facilitated the process of readers pursuing the citations and external links to gather additional information and to draw their own conclusions from neutral, reliable sources. TealCyfre0 02:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the previous controversey added a couple days back seemed pretty biased, but now it looks like there is selective omission of other facts to really merit a true controversey section. A controversey should state the facts that are controversial, not just recount the disputed events and present the police labelings as undisputed truth (Kenney was *convicted of assault* against an officer.) I mean, let's face it, "O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder by a jury of his peers" doesn't do justice to that controversey.
He / she should indeed make a Liko Kenney page, I'd also be happy to help a bit, but I agree about the notability - perhaps they should make a Kenney-McKay controversey entry? I know everybody is sensitive of speaking ill of the dead, but from my readings of the news and facts presented, this recent entry just seems very biased toward McKay and does not even give a flavor for the real controversey. anonymous 07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Per my understanding of Wikipedia criteria one must be exceedingly careful to cite authoritative sources presented in the most neutral possible fashion. While Officer McKay, the subject of this particular entry, is now deceased and therefore not himself directly subject to WP:BLP, other parties attendant to events are very much alive and, therefore, in my understanding WP:BLP criteria must be applied to this entry for that reason. I would suggest that, first, as the subject of this entry is Officer McKay, not the controversy, it is appropriate and necessary to refer to the controversy as the fact of the controversy confers 'notability' per WP:Notability criteria on Officer McKay. That does not mean, however, that the subject of this entry is the controversy itself, and I agree that if someone wants to start a separate, appropriately linked entry for the controversy that that would make good sense. As for this entry, however, as in my understanding WP:BLP criteria apply on the basis of its inevitably involving and affecting the reputation of many living persons, very strict sourcing must be applied as well as extreme care to adhere to WP:NPOV. At present the single most authoritative source available is the official report of the AG. In summary, I don't feel extensive treatment of the controversy per se belongs in this entry. It is entirely appropriate, I would think, to other entries appropriately linked here if anyone cares to create them. TealCyfre0 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I stand firmly in the middle of the controversey, and I think that using words like "acting in defence of the dying officer" is a bit much, as we simply do not have enough information to make calls like this and is clearly romantic NPOV imagery. I've made everything a bit more bland / factual for the bio portion. Agreed, Teal, about not expanding the controversey section, I just wanted a reader to actually know what the controversey was about. Articles like this can be extremely important, and it is difficult to be absolutely impartial. anonymous 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- On looking at your edits I agree that they make the entry more bland/neutral, which I agree is appropriate – to keep the description as simple, as clear, and as neutral as possible. A pleasure to work with you. TealCyfre0 05:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise -- reads well now. anonymous 13:33, 03 July 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a couple of statements recently added as to the 'controversy' as, so far as I can see, the cites provided don't support the statements made. If I've missed something, and they do in fact provide support, please correct my misunderstanding. I've also removed the prominently placed reference to an 'Independent Media' journal that is an advocacy blog of some sort and, therefore, not a reliable source per WP criteria. AtomikWeasel 07:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's difficult, I think, to keep the presentation of the fact of controversy from itself becoming controversial. It would be possible to find partisan sources characterizing McKay purely as a comic-book hero and Kenney as a comic-book villain, or vice versa. It seems to me best, and appropriate per WP criteria, simply to acknowledge the fact of controversy, keep it brief, as the description of events has been kept brief, and direct the reader to neutral, reliable sources. Note that this entry is for Bruce Mckay, not for Liko Kenney or a Controversy. If someone wishes to create entries for those topics, that may be appropriate. The question here, in my understanding, is what is appropriate, per WP criteria of NPOV and reliable sourcing, for this entry. AtomikWeasel 07:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The edits recently placed here are in my judgement inaccurate summaries of their sources, clearly POV – for example noting 10 complaints filed against Kenney but ignoring 30 commendations and letters of thanks filed in the same period according the the same article. It seems to me clearly necessary to provide a NPOV summary of the sources or to simply note the fact of controversy, provide cites of the sources, and let readers draw their own conclusions from the sources rather than frenziedly editorialize. Please discuss and/or do so. AtomikWeasel 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've once again removed what appear to me to be statements unsupported by cites. If there are specific reliable sources for the statements made, please provide them. TheCommunistMenace 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
