Talk:Jean Godden/Archive 1

	Biography portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

A lot of the biography had been lifted verbatim from her City of Seattle Biography: http://www.seattle.gov/council/godden/bio.htm There is still a bit of that left in there, for those in the mood to edit Surfeited 07:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikesmash's sources

The sources that Mikesmash is adding to Jean Godden appears valid for reporting criticism of a politician. Real Change News and Beacon Hill News are both valid news sources with full editorial oversight. • Lawrence Cohen 13:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) they are not credible. an editorial by an endorser of joe szwaja is not an unbiased source fit for inclusion in a person's biographic wiki. real change does not have editorial oversight. it is run by tim harris, who is also a public supporter of joe szwaja. as per above, this does not meet the test of what is okay for a bio. if the executive director of a no-name paper (real change, circulation appx 1,200 copies) is an open endorser of joe szwaja, you have a conflict of interest problem. same with an op-ed in another no-name paper (beacon hill news? huh?) written by an outspoken opponent of jean. not unbiased. conflict of interest. no business on jean's wiki.

By that reasoning Jean Godden's endorsements by the Times and the PI should be removed from Jean's page, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.187.83 (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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 libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

B) Ignoring point A, assuming that the source was the NY Times, why on Earth does this paragraph have any business being on this wiki:

"Godden has faced criticism alleging that she is too beholden to developers. At a July 17 meeting in which 43rd District Democrats voted on their endorsements for the August 21 primary, a flier co-authored by John Fox of the Seattle Displacement Coalition stated that Godden has “consistently voted against the interests of neighborhoods, low-income and working people while routinely catering to the likes of Paul Allen, downtown, and the corporate establishment.”[1] The Beacon Hill News/South District Journal said of Godden, "there isn't a subsidy or a zoning change requested by Paul Allen's Vulcan Inc. that she hasn't fully supported."

Obscure (and controversial) information about a small community meeting is completely irrelevant and does not belong on here. Also there is no evidence to support this claim, "a flier co-authored by John Fox of the Seattle Displacement Coalition stated that Godden has 'consistently voted against the interests of neighborhoods, low-income and working people while routinely catering to the likes of Paul Allen, downtown, and the corporate establishment.'" Where is the citation for that? You really think this is worthy of a paragraph on Jean Godden's wiki? Because it absolutely is not. Landsfarthereast 23:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "small community meeting" was a legislative district Democratic meeting, Carlo. One you attended as Godden's campaign manager. The statements are balanced given that they're followed by her endorsements. It's basically "some say things like this, but endorsements say this". It's well balanced.

Of course, if you'd like to take down all of the remarks about "lackluster opposition" or anything by the Times and PI since they've endorsed Godden, feel free. They've been judged to be legit sources. Because if you want to play the "but the source is a friend or supporter of the candidate" game, you do remember that Godden was a longtime employee of both major papers and is endorsed by both now, right? The sources were deemed legit. Live with it, Carlo.

For a guy who attacks me for not having a life, you sure spend alot of time arguing with me over the internet.Mikesmash 01:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) you don't know who i am, mike. you keep assuming that i am carlo, but really, you have no idea. B) your sources are a joke. you know it. to compare real change to the seattle times is laughable. i'm sorry your friend thinks that real change is a legitimate news outlet. you don't see the conflict of interest in having tim harris run real change and also endorse joe? it's pretty obvious. it is stated that jean was endorsed by 4 out of 6 demo districts. that is fact. everything else in innuendo.Landsfarthereast 05:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Carlo, a simple five second Google search of "Carlo Davis seattle" found your livejournal blog and surprise, surprise... your AIM name listed there is....Landsfarthereast. And both backing Godden? A coincidence? Not likely. And Cohen isn't my friend. He was one of the editors called in when that IP fellow started throwing a tantrum and blanking out the Joe Szwaja page. The other editor who was involved was from the UK. Both papers have a listing of their editors on their sites. A neutral party found both satisfactory. But if you really have a problem with sources that have endorsed a candidate being used, feel free to cut out the Times/PI stuff since they both endorsed AND employed Godden. This Conflict of interest of yours has been reported and will be dealt with. Mikesmash 06:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a simple five second Google search of "Carlo Davis seattle" found your livejournal blog and surprise, surprise... your AIM name listed there is"

If I was Carlo Davis I would be really, really creeped out right now. Knowing that you are on the internet prowling into people's personal lives is a little sketchy. Landsfarthereast 04:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy does it

Citing an advocacy website, a political campaign website, or a newspaper editorial in order to push your own POV into the article isn't allowed. Instead, cite news sources. If your feelings or connections are so strong that you can't follow WP:NPOV and WP:V, we have millions of other articles you can edit. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information on endorsements

Hello, in regards to these edits, is there something wrong with the sources? The Seattle Times/PI, Real Change News, Pacific Publishing Company, and Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission are all fine sources for this page. • Lawrence Cohen 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not when the citation is to an opinion piece on the editorial page. There's a difference between news and opinion! - Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, actually! What do you think of these as sources? Real Change News, Beacon Hill News & South District Journal? Both are reputable news sources in the area. • Lawrence Cohen 16:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that real change is considered a reputable news source in Seattle. Their mission statement says "Real Change exists to create opportunity and a voice for low-income people while taking action to end homelessness and poverty." Sounds like an advocacy publication more than a real credible news source. I personally do not think that links to advocacy articles or opinion pieces are a problem as long as there is balance and that the article states that they are opinions, not facts 201.240.31.236 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Change has a fine enough reputation and has full editorial oversight. I see no problem with using it as a source for a quoation than any other source, particularly since many opinion pieces from "opinion" publications like the Nation or the New Yorker are referenced on wikipedia. And IP, 201, stop vandalizing the pages, please.