Talk:Terry Keel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the WikiProject University of Houston, an attempt to improve coverage regarding the University of Houston. 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 not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
The "Samrayburn" entries are Austin-based from a contributor quoting exclusively and selectively (including some more than a decade old) from an Austin weekly that identifies itself as partisan left (though the contributor does not acknowledge this) and they are thus tendentious under Wikipedia guidelines. Other blanket assertions, e.g., "served developer interests", etc are unattributed and violate Wikipedia guidelines. The original article by Hawthorn cites a balance of sources and is not favorable or unfavorable to the subject and written with detachment unlike the new tendentious entries. Univhoulawctr (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Re the above, I checked and the contributor "Samrayburn" has an edit history adverse in particular to the republican Texas House Speaker and that may explain why he has interposed these new tendentious entries into this article, given this article is tangentially connected to that subject matter.Historydeptacc (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please see below for a discussion of the edits.Samtrayburn (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The entries being inserted by "Samrayburn" also wiped out Reading and Hawthorne's sourced entries, including bar journal publications, etc. This article is part of the Wikiproject University of Houston and I will attempt to monitor though it appears that this needs to be reported.Uofhreview (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Untrue, please see below. The original "sourced entries" are primarily from Keel's personal and law office website.Samtrayburn (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The "Samtrayburn" person is now conducting wholesale disruptive editing, wiping out nearly all of the article's original sourced material and inserting still more commentary and attack-style content.Univhoulawctr (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Untrue, please see below. The "original sourced material" is primarily Keel's personal and law office website.Samtrayburn (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that no one reads the actual edits. Just because this entry is about a person that attended UofH's law school does not mean that should only present a sanitized bio of the person. A simple search of any media, including the Dallas Morning News (a noted conservative newspaper) would discover stories that all agree that Keel is a controversial figure in Austin and Texas politics. The original "sourced entries," as I noted earlier, are primarily from Keel's personal website and press releases. After Univhoulawctr complained about use of the Austin Chronicle stories as sources, I instead sourced the statements to the Austin American-Statesman and rewrote the entire entry and included the information about the Baby Brandon case. I don't believe that constitutes "wholesale disruptive editing." I also removed the "sympathetic to developer interests" statement. It's clear from Univhoulawctr's editing history that he is solely concerned with editing this article. I hope that Univhoulawctr isn't Terry Keel trying to police his own entry, which is a clear violation of wiki guidelines. As for "an edit history adverse in particular to the republican Texas House Speaker," I don't know what that means, other than ensuring that entries dealing with Texas politics present a fair picture of the events referred to. I don't think that disqualifies me from editing an entry, just as it doesn't disqualify a person with an edit history unadverse to the current speaker from editing an article on a Democrat.Samtrayburn (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You have repeatedly eliminated sourced entries, including, for example, citations to publications authored by the subject of the article and other information, including federal court licensures, etc. After you've eliminated the bulk of information most readers would find of primary relevance (info you apparently don't want the reader to know about the subject), you then insert passages from secondary sources, exclusively selecting unflattering quotes. You also make unsupported commentary, such as saying, he faced "mostly token opposition" etc., and then use secondary sources to discuss matters, such as the Brandon Baugh case, about which you also supply unsourced, incorrect information, [about which primary sources exist, that you apparently have not reviewed - see, e.g., Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544 (Tex Crim App 1997), cert denied, 119 S.Ct. 437 (1998; See Byington v Keel et al, No. A-94-CA-815, Transcript of Proceedings, Sept 18, 1995)]. You have no need to convince us further of your hostility towards the subject of the article, and we would only ask that you discontinue your wholesale elimination of the original article, and instead insert proper edits, with proper sources, and allow others to likewise thereafter correct and edit your work. As for our identity and contact info, we'll be glad to share that with you if you'll do the sameUnivhoulawctr (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're not reading the edited article. Keel's federal court licensures are at the bottom of the page with his other credentials. Keel's opposition in his legislative elections was token -- half the time, Keel faced no candidate. You chose to interpret that as a negative, but I think most observers of politics would attribute that to the strength of the candidate that no one bothers to file against him. The statement "He is also a frequent lecturer on the subjects of criminal law and ethics" is taken directly from his website bio and is not sourced other than that -- that's why it was edited out. The Brandon Baugh information was sourced to the Austin daily. Even if you think the Statesman got it wrong, then add in the cases you cite -- don't just revert the article back to a prior, insufficient version. Under Wikipedia standards, "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." As noted, the original "sourcing" was to Keel's personal and law firm websites. This violates the verifiability standards, which provide "the article is not [to be] based primarily on [self-published] sources."Samtrayburn (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You're not reading your own work. Your edits exclusively pursue a negative slant on the subject and you frequently make unsourced commentary or propose generalizations based on secondary source commentary that you do not identify as partisan. We have no objection to expanding the article. For example, if you wish to insert reference to the State v. Henderson case, we have a lot of properly-sourced information on that we could also add that is accurate. Also, if you wish to place selective critical comments quoted from various articles, the entire article can be expanded and the perspectives counter to your view could can be inserted by others. We cannot do that if you continue to vandalize the entire original article. I would suggest that if everyone is in agreement that the artcle needs expanding, the Austin person hostile towards the subject should submit his edits in a responsible way and the article can just be greatly expanded.Uofhreview (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think a review of the edits shows all commentary is sourced. I've removed statements that I don't belive violated Wikipedia standards just to try and move past this revert war. I respectfully suggest that someone start adding the information that they think is necessary to improve the article. The article being reverted to does not meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability and should not be the starting point.Samtrayburn (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not revert to your version. Please insert the negative edits you prefer into the original. You are incorrect that the original is sourced only by the info from the subject. We have the info you have criticized in references at U of H. The original article was written by Billy Hathorn. We will expand the footnotes of the original material much further (to the state bar, state ageny info, etc) if that will satisfy you, but we cannot do the edits if you continue to circumvent the original article.Uofhreview (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
