Talk:Cheryl B. Schrader

DUI Conviction
The section was removed by user User:Andrewcareaga, whose user page says "Andrew Careaga is Director of Communications, Missouri University of Science and Technology (formerly the University of Missouri-Rolla)" has removed the entire DUI Conviction section without first discussing it:


 * Removed in accordance with the guidelines of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, specifically that "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."

That section contained only fact, fully sourced from the publicly available court records. That's pretty conservative. Privacy is also not an issue. Except for the details of the criminal charges, the court records don't contain any information that isn't contained in the other sources cited by the article. Fully sourced basic details from criminal court records is about as conservative as you can get. An employee of the university where Chancellor Schrader works shouldn't be making subjective decisions like that. Also, should he even be editing the article about his boss? Is that what the good people of Missouri pay the university staff to do?

 A DUI arrest is a serious thing, especially for someone in a position of leadership like the dean at a public university. The article Biographies of living persons states


 * "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

By removing the DUI section, User:Andrewcareaga has effectively claimed that a DUI arrest and subsequent guilty plea of the chancellor is not noteworthy and relevant. If that user is indeed the Director of Communications at Missouri University of Science and Technology, I hope that is just a personal opinion, and not the official position of the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.146.62 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the DUI Conviction section should be restored, unless someone can provide an argument for removing it that really is in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and remains in the NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.146.62 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that I read it again, I do think that section was overly detailed, so I cut it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.146.62 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As the article was prodded over the DUI, I have reviewed that section. Content there gave undo weight, and was removed. In my opinion, that entire section can be removed. Dloh cierekim  15:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reffered the matter to the BLP notice board -> Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Dloh cierekim  16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP has the rules and examples we should follow. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." So, the question is, is there a multitude of reliable third-party sources covering the DUI? If so, we should have it. If not, we shouldn't. Currently, we only have court records. Those aren't a multitude, and they aren't even third party; they're primary sources. I'm going to delete the section based on that. If we can find multiple respected newspapers, books, television programs, etc., covering the issue, we can put it in, but until then it should stay out. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with assessment by GRuban. Court documents are primary, not good enough to establish notability for controversial information on a BLP.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I must agree as well. Unlike the earlier reason given for removing the section, this one makes sense.  However, "multitude" is not the same thing as "multiple."  The former suggest "many," while the latter indicates "more than one."  Also there is a difference between an incident and a conviction for the incident.  Court records are primary sources for the judicial response to the incident, but third-party sources for the incident itself.  At least, that's what we're told in civics class, that the court is supposed to be impartial.  In this case the arrest of Schrader for driving under the influence of alcohol is the "allegation" and the court action serves as third-party documentation.  There are two separate court cases, so isn't that multiple sources?  I think that satisfies the BLP requirement for the DUI arrest.  I think we're arguing technicalities here.  I have a personal bias here, so I am not going to revert the edits.24.117.146.62 (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, this article is now much better than it was. It read like a campaign biography.  As it stands, the DUI section probably would have undue emphasis.24.117.146.62 (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)~


 * In all fairness, Dr. Schrader was not actually "convicted" of the DUI crime. I just looked at the court records.  She was arrested and plead guilty, but she was given a "withheld judgement" instead of a conviction.  That means that because she complied with the conditions of probation (in this case, suspended license, victims' panel, etc.) her case was ultimately dismissed without an actual record of conviction. This might be another reason to leave the DUI incident out of the main article; however, at the same time, it is splitting hairs.  As the dean of a college, and now the chancellor of a university, Dr. Schrader has placed herself in a position of the public eye and cast herself as a role model.  In that light, a DUI arrest is more significant than it would be for someone who is not in such a position.  Personally I think it should be at least mentioned in the article, if for no other reason, to balance out the all the (mostly unsourced) praise that comprises the present content. Uranographer (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Approximately 24 hours ago, an anonymous user again posted information about the DUI conviction. I removed that information citing the same reasons as previous removal. If this continues to be a problem, perhaps we should consider removing this entry altogether? Under the "Vanity" talk, it has been described as a vanity page and not worthy of Wikipedia. Andrewcareaga (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That information was not posted by an anonymous user: it was posted by me. I gave a clear set of reasons as to why I believe it belongs in the article, despite that it veers from the "BLP" guidelines.  I added the information--which, by the way, was quite different than the "DUI Conviction" section you removed earlier--because there was no disagreement to the list of reasons I provided.  The BLP Guidelines are just that: guidelines.  They are not strict rules, and I believe I have presented a sufficient argument for an exception.  Need I remind you that the reason you gave for removing the earlier text has been refuted in this talk page?  The DUI record does not provide any personal information that is not readily obtainable elsewhere, and therefore respects the subject's privacy.  If you read further in the paragraph from which your reason is quoted:  "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."  There is nothing sensationalist, titilating, or tabloid-like about a court record.  If you read the rest of this talk page, you will see that other editors argued against inclusion of the DUI information because of the lack of secondary sources.  I counter that there are no secondary sources provided in support of anything in the article, and therefore the court records are consistent with the other sources and are appropriate for the article.  If you disagree, please present your argument here on the talk page rather than immediately removing the information based on your personal interpretation of the BLP guidelines, as I presented my reasons here before I edited the article.   According to your own editor information, you are employed by the institution of which the subject of this article serves as chancellor.  Therefore I have reverted your changes In accordance with the WIkipedia Rules on Conflict-of-Interest Editing. Uranographer (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Having said all that, I removed the DUI information myself. I have no desire to get into an "edit war" here, and I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. I admit that part of the reason I added that information was to see the response: no one responded to any of my comments, so I didn't know what to think.  I should mention that the result of the "prodding" noted above stated that the section gave "undue weight."  I agree, which is why the version I added was part of the "Personal Life" section and phrased it in as neutral and sympathetic tone as I could:"In 2009, she pled guilty to a charge of Driving under the Influence in Idaho; however, the case was eventually dismissed under 'withheld judgement' after she completed the terms of her probation."In any case, I am going to request more community input on this article, if there are no objections. Uranographer (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * On May 11, 2016, 64.15.81.31 undid the revision by Uranographer to remove this section about Dr. Schrader's DUI arrest, in apparent disregard for the request for more community input on the article. This post by an anonymous user raises questions in my mind as to this individual's motive to reinstate that information on Dr. Schrader's page. I too do not wish to get into an "edit war" but do wish to share my objection to this action. It has been pointed out that I am employed by the same institution where Dr. Schrader serves as chancellor. That is correct, and I have been up front about my affiliation with the university and my role as the campus's chief communications officer. However, I have attempted to approach edits on this page objectively and in adherence with Wikipedia guidelines and best practices. Andrewcareaga (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability?
This talk page raises an interesting point. Does an even that happened earlier in someone's life become more "notable" as that person rises in prominence? Certainly it does in some cases--John's Kerry's war record was not notable (according to the definition put forth here) before he entered politics. By taking the position of chancellor at MS&T, Schrader has chosen to put herself in a position of leadership in the public eye. The standards of decorum are different for someone in that role. I think the same is true for the dean of a college, and it's interesting that the DUI conviction apparently didn't get any press in Idaho. Is it possible that it was kept out of the papers to preserve the image of BSU? Frankly, from what I'm reading here, it seems that editors may be doing the same here.

So what constitutes "controversial information" anyway? I would think that meant something like an unsubstantiated claim of sexual misconduct or an unsettled or dropped lawsuit, In this case, it seems Schrader was arrested for and subsequently plead guilty to a criminal DUI. Those linked court records prove that. I don't see how that incident is in any way "controversial," especially with a guilty plea. It may be negative and distasteful, but the only thing controversial about it is, apparently, whether or not is should be included here. Wikipedia is not a vanity blog, but it is evidently being treated as such in this article. On the other hand, it's not a venue for mudslinging either. I would like someone to weigh in about including the DUI who has no connection with Schrader, BSU, or MS&T.Uranographer (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Vanity
This is a vanity article if I've ever seen one. The only references are to MS&T sites praising the new chancellor. It looks like this article was just copied from there. Those are not neutral sources. I say either remove the article or put the DUI back in. At least court records are neutral sources. You can't just put up an article about someone, ignoring notability, then hide behind Wikipedia's other policies when someone adds information you don't like. That sounds like a dirty academic trick, and it's hypocritical. 64.105.253.82 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know about it being a "dirty academic trick" but the only references (that work) are to sources from her university. There should be at least one reference to some true third party source on the subject.  Funny how news releases and news sites from her own university are considered neutral sources, but court records are not.  73.42.140.60 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the content and tone of the article are what seem vain. If the present content of the article is to be believed, at least three of the criteria for Notability of an academic (see WP:NACADEMICS) are satisfied.  The presidential mentoring award or whatever it was probably satisfies Criterion 2; supposedly she has been elected "fellow of the IEEE" (which is specifically mentioned in Criterion 3); holding the position of chancellor at MS&T satisfies Criterion 6.  As only one is needed, certainly the existence of this article satisfies the Notability Guidelines.  I disagree with deleting it; however, better references are needed.  Uranographer (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)