Talk:William Bradford (professor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
WikiProject University of Florida This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Florida. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. B
This article has been rated as a Mid priority article Mid
To-do list for William Bradford (professor): edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-07. The result of the discussion was Keep.
    Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 20, 2006. The result of the discussion was broken beyond repair.

    Contents

    [edit] Deletion

    I created this page, but I would agree with whomever nominated it for speedy deletion. The professor in question is not enough of a public figure to warrant this page. Perhaps most important, the professor desires to be removed from Wikipedia and I believe those wishes should be honored.--YHoshua 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    I don't see that this is someone who needs to be an entry in an encyclopedia, virtual or otherwise. In my estimation, a person ought to be notable or important in some extraordinary way to merit inclusion, and I just don't see that this is the case here. I think it is especially true if he is no longer even a professor, and therefore being described incorrectly by the entry. The fact that the editing history reveals so many conflicting/contradictory bits of "information" makes me even less willing to give any credence to the article in any form. If both the subject and the author desire deletion, my opinion is that they should have the final say.Owmyeye 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    I understand the arguments for deleting this entry. However, I currently think it should be kept, as his situation is part of recent politicization of academia. As Groggy Dice has pointed out, a fair amount of national attention was brought to Bradford's case, and he at one point appeared to have a good academic future before him. So while I don't think Wikipedia's good reputation would collapse if the article were deleted, I think it should be kept.
    For the record: I participated in the discussions with Prof. Bradford on the indylawnet.com blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMOinLA (talk • contribs) 12:55, 2 August 2006

    I know that WP:AFD isn't the "cleanup department," but the changes made while the article was up for deletion satisfied my concerns with the article. Thank you to those who helped :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Message from William Bradford

    Please delete and preclude any future such articles about me. I am the subject of this grossly inaccurate and harmful page, and on behalf of myself, my wife, and my family, I would like to see it removed permanently.

    Why? For the following reasons. My CV is and has always been accurate and has never, save for in the context of this article, been questioned in any way. The article claims that I made claims about my military service, specifically that I "claimed [I] served in the infantry and military intelligence during Desert Storm and Bosnia conflicts, that [I] eventually became a major in Special Forces, and was awarded the prestigious Silver Star." It claims that I "frequently wore a Silver Star lapel pin around campus and had a major's gold-leaf insignia plate on his vehicle." Although I did in fact serve in military intelligence, the particulars of my service and of my honorable discharge in October 2001 were and remain classified, and I have never discussed them, nor can I now discuss them, with persons who lack the requisite clearance and need-to-know. Although various media sources have reported various things about my military service, and have attributed to me various statements or claims, I have not been the source of any such claims, nor have I been accurately named as the source. As to the wearing of a "Silver Star lapel pin around campus," this is also false. The only lapel pins I have worn in the last ten years are the American flag and a rape survivors pin in honor of my wife. As to a "major's gold-leaf insignia plate" on my vehicle, that too is false. I have a Hoosier Veteran plate and a VFW plate, and nothing more.

    At to the visiting professorship in New Zealand in the spring of 2006, I did indeed have conversations with Victoria University, but never finalized an arrangement. Again, the article is written in such a manner as if to suggest that I fabricated this also. Nothing could be more inaccurate.

    Finally, the article states that my intent--as if anyone other than me could know my intent with certainty--is to serve as "manager of [my] tribe's up-and-coming casino." This is news to me, as my tribe does not have a casino, nor land upon which to build it. The viciousness and vitriol is unrelenting.

    Most or all of these unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable alleged claims are the product, I believe, of those who opposed my quest for tenure two years ago and demonized me for having refused to sign a petition in support of Ward Churchill, the former University of Colorado professor who likened the victims of September 11th to Nazis. Although I was a somewhat prolific legal scholar, I never sought, nor did I achieve, the status of public figure, nor did I wish to become either the champion of the academic right or the whipping boy of the academic left. While I wanted to be treated fairly and granted tenure at Indiana University, I ultimately concluded that I could not and thus elected in September 2005 to resign, effective January 1 2006. It is tragic to think that all it takes for one's character, reputation, and professional life to be destroyed is for opponents to deliberately release misinformation, attribute blame for the misinformation to the subject, and then post articles far and wide across cyberspace condemning the subject and impugning his character. Yet that is precisely, and tragically, what has happened.

    I can't help but believe that the article on Wikipedia and secondary citations to the article are injurious to me in my professional life, and I know quite certainly that they are terribly upsetting to my wife. Last summer I wrote to the author of the article, Joshua Claybourne, requesting that he remove it. It was his wish that the article be removed. However, other persons prevailed in preserving it in its terribly inaccurate and deeply hurtful form. I believe that reasonable persons, in examining the article, would reach two conclusions: 1) it has been shaped by those who intend solely to cause me harm, and 2) although I had some success in legal academia, I am not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. At best, I was a footnote to the Churchill story.

    I am now an MBA student hoping to develop skills that will benefit my tribe, and I ask that you remove this article so that my family and I can be relieved of the anxiety and stress this very inaccurate and hurtful writing imposes upon us. Simply viewing the article and writing to you know is tremendously stressful and damaging to my health, and I have been advised against even thinking about it by my physician. I write only because I wish to regain my privacy and to be able to work for the benefit of my family and tribe unfettered by ongoing attacks such as this. I would also ask that you take whatever measures are possible administratively to prevent my attackers from simply reposting another article about me.

    Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and in other mainstream media outlets have identified a general decline in civil discourse, particularly given the anonymity of cyberspace, and attacking the reputation and character of people through this new medium has become almost a sport. I know that the founder of Wikipedia has pledged his interest in protecting the integrity of his company by being very careful in regards to biographies of living persons in order to prevent the sort of harm that is being inflicted upon me now. I believe that if he were to read my request of you that he would be inclined to grant it. I hope you are of the same view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.202.104 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 24 March 2007

    There is an Indy Star article from Feb 2005 by Ruth Holladay cited in the references. As a note, if this entry is not to be deleted under BLP, the same writer appears to have written a rather different piece in December, entitled "Truth comes out about professor's background" (text [1], official source here $$$, additional here). - Quietvoice 10:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, as I have said, misinformation was reported about me, and that misinformation, although never attributed to me as a source because it could not be attributed to me as I was not the source, was used as the basis for subsequent attacks on my character. I never made any claims about my government service to anyone save for that it was and remains classified, and that whatever appears in the public records is what I stand behind. To continue to permit the malicious editing of this article to allow those who wish me ill for having sought tenure years ago is the basest sort of conduct.
    I reiterate, it is defamatory and libelous to attribute to me claims that I did not make or conduct in which I did not engage, and it causes me significant professional and physical harm while impairing my ability to take care of my disabled wife and two small children. I request again that if it is not possible to preserve a fair and unbiased page that does not falsely attribute to me claims and statements I have not made and which no reliable source can impute to me, that this page be removed and that whatever technological means necessary to prevent it from being reposted are employed.
    I have posted about this article on WP:AN/I#William Bradford (professor). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] General note

    This page is currently protected. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Yup. Feel free to porpose changes, though, I don't think we'll have any huge problem with that right now. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Just wasn't sure if the editing parties were aware. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Military record

    We have a problem with the military record section. The only source cited for the purported claim to have been a major is a copy of an Indy Star article which is hosted in violation of copyright on a website which is itself highly partisan. That is not a showstopper as it could be sourced direct from the Indy Star, albeit perhaps with no link for the content, but there is only one source for this claim and that itself does not seem to be an especially good source since the piece was later seen to be in error on a couple of issues. We are assured by the subject above that he did not make these claims, so in the absence of a better source for them I do not think we should include that section at all; take out the hint of scandal and it is pretty trivial stuff. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    I hadn't searched for other sources for that claim, so I don't know if there are others. Last night I was primarily concerned with referencing the entire article, and not just that paragraph. You are correct in that the article looks pretty good the way it is now (with the military section removed). The references used in it can probably be moved to other parts of the article, as well. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sure, changes are not a problem. Hopefully we can get William Bradford to chip in and co-operate here - he can also contact people through back-channels, either by emailing me (special:emailuser/JzG) or other admins, or through WP:OTRS, our online ticketing system. We can't, of course, promise that he will love the end result, but hopefully he will at least be able to acknowledge it as fair. Please be assured that we have commitment from the very highest level to be humane as well as accurate. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    As an aside, I have a question about these edits and WP:BLP. I've always used {{fact}} as a placeholder where I intend to put a reference, or where a reference is needed. Is that wrong? I am aware that BLP states that you shouldn't have unsourced information about living people, but it wasn't referenced before, and I had to sleep at some point, you know? So, I suppose my question is to what extent is the {{fact}} tag acceptable in articles tagged as BLP? It's not like those facts were the controversial ones, either. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If something is uncontroversial, or if you're pretty sure it's true from web searches but you're trying to track down the best source, it's perfectly legitimate. But if the fact is negative in tone it's best to omit rather than add fact, and you should probably self-revert after a wek or so if you can't find a reputable source for anything, good or bad. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)