Talk:Victoria Wells Wulsin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ohio Portal Victoria Wells Wulsin is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents 1 Reverted text - AIDS research 2 Reverted text - again 3 POV 4 NPOV disputed tag 5 Request for Comment

[edit] Reverted text - AIDS research

I removed text just added about Wulsin's work with the Heimlich Institute to analyze data on African AIDS patients; the basic facts still remain in the article. What was added was negative information. Wikipedia has very specific criteria on this, which the added text failed: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material.

Specifically:

• The first cited source, the Cincinnati Beacon, says of itself "The Cincinnati Beacon is an independent news source for Cincinnati, Ohio. We boast an all volunteer, unpaid staff. We are like a Cincinnati blog, Cincinnati newspaper, or Cincinnati internet magazine." For negative information, the criteria here is particularly relevant: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.

• The second cited "source" was a google search: [1] That is completely unacceptable.

• Third, the added text uses a source already in the article - [2] to make the claim that "In December 2004, when reporters began asking questions, [Wulsin] and Heimlich terminated the relationship." I was unable to find any indication in the article that the article, published in November 2005, began in 2004, or that a reporter put any questions to Wulsin before she was fired by Heimlich. It's noteworthy that the article says in December 2004, the day after issuing a draft of her report ... Wulsin was fired.. So it appears that a good source was misquoted.

In short, this sort of thing is unacceptable for a wikipedia article about a living person. Information from good sources, accurately stated, is always welcome; this was not. John Broughton 02:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted text - again

• The inserted text says Heimlich's widely discredited theory that AIDS patients can be cured by infecting them with malaria; but no (acceptable) source is cited (and, more importantly, even if the theory is discredited, the issue is its status as of late 2004, when Wulsin was hired to analyze data).
• Dr. Wulsin claims that she was later fired by Dr. Henry Heimlich, a claim which Dr. Heimlich has not verified implies that this is a "he said", "she said" argument. In fact, the "was fired" comes from a magazine article, not a statement by Wulsin, and Heimlich has apparently never disputed the fact.
• The text AGAIN cites the Cincinnati Beacon, correctly identifying it as a blog (kudos); but blogs are UNACCEPTABLE as sources. Moreover, even if what is cited is true (that the blog got a copy of the report and said they were going to post it, and the Wulsin campaign got there first, but added a cover sheet), it fails the test of being IMPORTANT. If the report has damaging information, then QUOTE the report, in the article. If the cover sheet CONTRADICTS the report, then point that out (trivia excepted, please).

• It is NOT news if a cover sheet of a report contains information beyond what is in a report. I concede that the title "Executive Summary" could be considered misleading, but since the fourth paragraph of the cover sheet discusses the Radar Online article, it should be obvious to the reader that the cover sheet is not just an executive summary of the report. In any case, this is trivia inappropriate for a wikipedia article. John Broughton 07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

It seems rather clear that the author(s) of this article think very highly of this candidate of the upcoming election. This article needs to be objective enough that a person with beliefs each or neither side could read it without a problem. Rockcutter88 14:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed much of the text of the 2005 special election - specifically, a lot of "campaign literature" stuff.

As for the rest of the article, it would be helpful if you would point out a few sentences you consider NOT to be objective, so others can better understand your concerns. John Broughton | Talk 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV disputed tag

I have placed the NPOV disputed tag on this page because (a) it continues to cite sources not deemed reliable/neutral, (b) the subject is a political candidate, and (c) that strongly suggests political motivation. The inappropriateness of citing a blog has previously been addressed; similarly, citing a political candidate's webpage while possibly more reliable, would best be balanced (or replaced) by a source from a more neutral source. If someone knows of a source that can verify these items, please reference them. Until these issues are resolved, I don't think this article meets Wikipedia criteria. 02:55, 28 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.236.66 (talk • contribs)

I'm removing that tag unless you can come up with a better reason and/or specifics. (b) and (c) are not good ones; if they were, the NPOV tag would be on EVERY wikiepedia article about a candidate, which certainly isn't the case. Regarding (a), it continues to cite sources not deemed reliable/neutral, the article cites exactly FIVE sources: two links to the SOTENI International, the non-profit Wulsin founded; one to the report she issued in December 2004 (including its cover sheet/executive summary); one to a magazine article; and one to a poll. All five of those are acceptable (as they are used) under WP:RS, as far as I can see. (And two external links, one to a League of Women Voters page, one to the candidate's website - surely you don't object to these?)

So - exactly what wording, and exactly what sources in this article do you object to? (Please list the top one or two, only, for starters.) And exactly what part of WP:RS and/or WP:NPOV do you believe they violated?? (Please provide specific wording.) Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 16:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

The following was posted today at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies by User:72.49.236.66:

Talk:Victoria Wells Wulsin--Cincinnati area physician running for Congress; disputed material appears to be repeatedly reposted, with poor sources. Anyone able to provide unbalanced source re: subject's former employment by Heimlich Institute? 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) interested voter

I'll let others respond first. John Broughton | Talk 16:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)