Talk:Neil Steinberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

If there is a reason that sourced and cited factual information should be deleted from this entry, I would hope that advocates of that position make their case on this talk page rather than removing the material that they consider "superfluous" and "malicious".

I would consider any reasoned argument, but vandalizing this entry to bury unpleasant facts is a violation of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy. Austinmayor 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is cited and factual doesn't mean it belongs at the end of a man's bio. You are not the final arbitrator. The facts are not "unpleasant," they are irrelevant, and it is your addition which is the vandalism. If the facts are cited, where are your citations? What are your motivations?



"Just because something is cited and factual doesn't mean it belongs at the end of a man's bio. You are not the final arbitrator."
Certainly not, and I do not claim to be. But when an author's next book is entitled "Drunkard" his history of alcohol use and arrests arising therefrom do seem self-evidently relevant. --Austinmayor 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"The facts are not "unpleasant," they are irrelevant, and it is your addition which is the vandalism."
As noted above, those facts are relevant to the subjects career as an author, columnist and former member of the Sun-Times editorial board. --Austinmayor 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, Wikipedia defines "vandalism" as "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," so my use of the word "vandalism" may have been intemperate. But the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiablity". "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. In this case, the source is the subject's newspaper employer. The facts under dispute clearly meet the threshold of "verifiability" and are not vandalism. --Austinmayor 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"If the facts are cited, where are your citations?"
The citations, as noted above, were to the Sun-Times coverage of the subjects arrest: [1] and [2]. A cursory review of the entry prior to deleting the section on the subject's arrest would have revealed that those citations were properly included. --Austinmayor 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"What are your motivations?"
Simply to make this article as comprehensive and accurate as possible, i.e. to make it encyclopedic. The subject of this article has not hidden from his problems with alcohol -- he has addressed them repeatedly in his writings and elsewhere -- I don't see any reason to attempt to hide those problems on Wikipedia.
As a side note, I have great respect for Mr. Steinberg's clever writing and the courage he has displayed while dealing with his problems. That respect is much of the reason that I don't feel a need to protect him from his recent past. --Austinmayor 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perceived flaw?

The central flaw of Wikipedia is the ability of peeved individuals to heap scorn on figures they don't like -- monitoring needs to be improved so that biographies of controversial figures do not become bathroom walls for the airing of biases and the settling of scores.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.238.5.75 (talk • contribs).

What's so offensive about a request for additional references and a message about an upcoming book? Zagalejo 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)