Talk:Brian Gallagher/Archive 1

Dear sir
65.35.11.173 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Talk Brian Gallagher, Dear Sir,   I'm certain that you are much too busy to read this yourself. My only hope is that it reaches somebody who can reply with some helpful information. I have run into a bit of a information barrier. I contacted the "Make A Wish Foundation" as well as the "Cure Foundation" The problem I continue to run into is that these organizations only help ill children. Please don't misunderstand, my wish is for my 12 year old son Brandon-He Is My World. He is at the top of his class,He loves school, he got a perfect score on his FCAT tests.He used to love riding on my motorcycle with me. He is a great athlete as well as sportsman and works after school with E.S.E children. He is every parent's dream. The problem I have run into is that since he was about 2 yrs.old, I began having health issues due to a rare hereditary disease.It first attacked my parathyroidwhich made me inemic as well as creating calcium stones in my kidneys about every 6mos. then panceatic tumors(which made me diabetic)then came the cancer. An Islet cell tumor,which had been part of the pancreatic tumor had been floating around in my chest for years until it began to grow into my heart and lung. After undergoing openheart surgery,I suffered a lung embolsim and had my diaphram severed. I could no longer coach my son's football team although I was still able to watch from the sidelines. Several months ago I had my annual follow-up with my primary M.D.and he saw shadows on my C.T. The cancer has returned with multiple tumor on the pancreas and lungs, but the worst news was after returning to Shands Hospital in Gainesville, we were told that I had stage 4 liver cancer and there is no chance for transplant or surgery or even radiation or chemo. Nothing about this scares or bothers me, except my son's well being. I've cashed in life insurance policies to pay off the morgage and car. The reason I feel so strongly about this is that my father left when was 2yrs. old and my mother died in 1979 at 38yrs old of a heart attack- I Was 12yrs. old. I know what kind of emotional damage can be caused to a child that loses His Whole World.

Level of detail
RandomCanadian, what is the appropriate level of detail to include here? If date of announcing resignation, date of resignation, the name of the firm investigating and of the person making the complaint as well as multiple quotes are considered appropriate for a summary level article then I don’t believe the nature of the allegations made would be considered unnecessary detail as noted by Sennecaster. KPopHtr (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved, my only edit here was reverting edit warring reported at ANI. As for levels of detail: that the allegations were made is a fact, and an easily verifiable one. The nature of them, though, need not be specified per WP:BLPCRIME, since until there are formal lawsuits and a conviction, they remain nothing more than something someone said which might or might not be true, and including details on them would lend undue credence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks RandomCanadian, for the explanation. I would tend to think that the two other quotations cited also fall under that same umbrella. They are detailed beyond the fact that allegations were made and could lend undue credence to certain viewpoints. For example, it is noted that 3 complaints were made to the EEOC yet only one complainant is quoted. Should Lisa Bowman’s and Brian Gallagher’s viewpoints be removed here or the other two viewpoints added (or at least note who made the other two complaints)? KPopHtr (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * El C or ProClasher97, please feel free to weigh in here as well on the appropriate level of detail. If Lisa Bowman is mentioned then it may make sense to mention the other individuals quoted as well. Or either not go down to that level of detail. Thanks KPopHtr (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an all or nothing issue here. It's not like we need to get a quote from everyone involved to mention a quote from one person. I think a better framing of this should be around adding the appropriate level of context for the reader to understand the situation as it relates to Gallagher.
 * I did have a different concern with your proposed edit. The way this was written (" Lisa Bowman, who alleged Gallagher fired her as retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by another executive, says that the other executive, who has not been named, approached her at a United Way conference and looked her body up and down saying, “that skirt looks great on you” ") might lead readers to incorrectly assume that the full extent of the harassment claim was just the one comment about the skirt. A reader might believe that the entire allegation is a reaction (or overreaction) to hearing a single comment about her clothing....but reading the source cited, there's actaully more to the complaint. I'll let the others weigh in on if the edit should be approved. If it is approved, it should be be rewritten in a way that clears up the confusion. Ew3234 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ew3234, we don't have to get a quote from everyone no, but there should be some thought behind why we would include a quote from one person and not another. I think the level of detail there currently while omitting the details of the allegations actually creates the opposite problem of what you outline making it seem worse than in reality. RandomCanadian goes so far as to suggest the possibility of a criminal lawsuit and conviction for Gallagher, when any lawsuit here would be a civil suit against United Way for wrongful termination or potentially a criminal suit against the alleged harasser. And if you read the entire original article regarding the complaints that comment is the apex of the allegations made by Lisa Bowman with the other background being this individual stating she was "intimidating" and generally making her feel uncomfortable. KPopHtr (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sennecaster, what’s your take here? We should want to provide clarity without providing so much detail that it goes beyond summary and raises more questions than it answers. The current version leaves a lot of threads hanging after briefly mentioning specifics. KPopHtr (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The other details add context. United Way's commissioned investigation found no harassment. It has contexts to share that one of the people who filed a complaint spoke out against the investigation findings. It also add contexts for Gallagher thoughts on the matter. This is a meaningful detail. Your proposed edit did the opposite. Adding the detail about the skirt is misleading, it may leave the reader with the wrong impression of the facts. Instead of talking about all the other details in the article you object too, why don't you propose what details you would like added to the article here and then we can work to integrate them, if appropriate .Ew3234 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ew3234, adding any mention of Lisa Bowman by name raises the question of what exactly she is claiming. I think we should either leave her name out and keep it a more general summary or if we leave her name in include more detail to avoid confusion. The detail that I added was her own words regarding the allegations. In addition, what is your reasoning for including Lisa Bowman’s name only and no detail about the other 2 EEOC claims? I don’t see a meaningful reason to do that. Perhaps there should be a page devoted to her if the whole backstory needs to be added or a subsection on the United Way Worldwide page as the claims involve multiple individuals beyond Gallagher and the investigation was not limited to him but looked into the organization as a whole. KPopHtr (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't add confusion to mention the name of the person who filed a complaint and then spoke out against the investigation findings. It adds context to the investigation findings. What part of that adds confusion? You say "adding any mention of Lisa Bowman by name raises the question of what exactly she is claiming" but that's covered in the article: "...who alleged Gallagher fired her as retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by another executive..." It does involves multiple individuals beyond Gallagher but Gallagher lost his job of it and this is an article about Gallagher. This topic's already on United Way page and I added more detail there today. Ew3234 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ew3234, given your latest response I think most of this detail belongs on the United Way page where it can be expanded to include the other claims and details about how the investigation was conducted as well as reactions to it from Lisa Bowman, Gallagher and possibly others. While that does provide context here, it’s no longer about Gallagher and goes beyond a summary of his involvement in these events. You could link to the section on the United Way page in the summary on this page. KPopHtr (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading through this thread, I'm at a loss of what you're asking. They seem to have some grievance with the article as written but it's unclear what exactly you want changed or added. It seems like you have an issue with sharing too much information without sharing other bit of information but it's unclear exactly what information you think is missing in this article. Your responses are a lot of whataboutism on why do we get to mention detail A without also mensioning detail B. I've asked this question before, but I don't feel like I got your answer: what exact information would you like added to this article and why?And on your comment about moving this topic to a separate page, this is an article about Gallagher and this cost him his job; it would be a disservice to readers not to include Gallagher's involvment here. Ew3234 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t really have a say. I came here as part of PCR and it looked like some kind of BLP violation given the info I had at the time. Now that there’s discussion on it I can say my revert was erroneous as part of PCR. Please do not involve me further, I’m not experienced in level of detail content-wise. Sennecaster   ( What now? ) 18:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ew3234, can we please keep the discussion civil? I am trying to strike the right balance on what to include where not saying it shouldn’t be included. I would either like info added on the other two claims and the nature of Lisa Bowman’s claim or remove the mention of only hers and keep it summary level expanding the detail on the United Way page which is where a longer explanation of this belongs then link to that here. I would be happy to work on adding that then link here. I also updated the leadership on the United Way page to show the Interim CEO as when I just checked the recent edits there I saw Gallagher was still erroneously listed as the current CEO. KPopHtr (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to come off as uncivil, sorry if it reads that way as it wasn't my intent. Just to make sure I understand this, you would like to add details on all three complaints - OR - remove mention any of Lisa Bowman's complaints. What is your argument for this? Ew3234 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I added a note on your talk page about potential COI but it looks like you removed it. Do you have an relationship to this topic? Ew3234 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ew3234, my rationale is to put the detailed account in the right location and leave the summary here. The entire investigation and the reactions pertain to United Way Worldwide while the summary information here pertains to Gallagher. The EEOC claims were against the organization not an individual. I have linked to the detailed account as part of the summary. I removed your note on my talk page because this article’s talk page is the appropriate place for this discussion. KPopHtr (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * KPopHtr, can you hold off on making edits to the page for discussion that are in progress? So you want to keep the topic focused infomation that pertains to Gallagher and not to confuse the alligation against other at United Way with alligations that are not about Gallagher (e.g. Gallagher did not commit harassment). Is this correct? Ew3234 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)×
 * KPopHtr, also please respond to the COI question by stating your relationship to this topic Ew3234 (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ew3234, I will answer your questions, but I will also say that I don’t feel the discussion with you has been very productive and it may be worth it to get someone else to weigh in here. I made the edits after I added additional detail on the United Way Worldwide page and then linked to it in this article. Could you please state your issue with that? My reasoning was that detail should be included, possibly even more than I already added, but it should be on the United Way Worldwide page which is the organization against which the claims were filed. It should be mentioned here (in a clear way to your point, eg which allegations were against whom and possibly what was the nature of the harassment allegations) but not expanded on to such a degree that it becomes the subject of the page. I changed my mind in the course of the discussion about which page the detail should be added to. I have no relationship to the topic beyond having seen the reporting on it. It was inappropriate for you to leave posts on my talk page stating that it is clear I have some connection here. Can I ask what is the basis of your interest in the topic? KPopHtr (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. It was a bit difficult to follow because your inital edit was related to adding more details around the skirt comment and some of your subsequent comments were around mentioning the names of the other women and their quotes. I agree that this should focus on Gallagher's role in this. I think it's important for readers to understand where he was involved and we're he wasn't. From the source, he was involved in firing one of the women and not addressing the concerns but did not do any harassment. I'll can take a pass at updating. Regarding the COI, that's a standard template message. It's a common practice to post that on accounts that one edit on one topic (called WP:SPA in the wiki world)- it was meant to accuse you but I can see how that came off that way. Not my intention. Just wanted to alert you in case you had a COI. I used to work at a local United Way ~16 years ago but don't have a relationship to the org and anyone employed there since that time. My only interest is in writing well-sourced and truthful articles. Ew3234 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)