Talk:Ralph Harry

Unreferenced edits
Substantial edits were made by User:JohnHarry in September 2016 that added significant content, all of it unreferenced. As a result, the current quality of the article is poor. Refer to the following edits
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Harry&oldid=739009052
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Harry&oldid=739147532

It would appear that the editor is someway connected with the subject (the user name shares the same name as the son of the person featured in the article, hence WP:COI), and/or subject matter, most likely with the Esperanto movement. I have today tagged various sections for section. However, much more work is needed by editors to improve the article's content and tone, using references. Rangasyd (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The following is copied from my talk page, relative to the above post:


 * Hi. I'm John Harry-Ralph's son. You should be aware that I'm not at all knowledgeable about Wikipedia! I've read your comments about Ralph's page. I amended the page because I wanted to included more material about his professional and personal life; I am not an Esperantist. If there are standards or practices that I heven't adhered to then of course it would be appropriate for amendments to be made, but I would not like to see any material alterations to the content I added unless there are inaccuracies. I have to say that when I re-read the article I found it hard to see why you would describe it as being of poor quality-perhaps you could explain why you see it that way. But, thanks for taking an interest-it's important to me and the family that there should be a complete summary of his life on Wikipedia, and if your contribution results in that, we would all be very happy. Sincerely, John. 1.145.146.149 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi John. Thanks for your message. I really appreciate you reaching out. Thanks. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia that is sourced by content from editors, drawn on the basis of independent research. The article about your dad contains four references (independent research that is publicly accessible), of which three references relate to your dad's Australian Honours. For an article of this length, there would probably be 15-25 references from independent articles about your dad. As a family member of someone with a Wikipedia article, Ralph Harry, it would appear that you have a conflict of interest. A simple example is that the article states that your father was:
 * ... born in 1917 in Geelong, as the youngest of four children.
 * Where is the independent evidence to support this claim? Another example is:
 * Harry was brought up to be frugal, reticent and hardworking and in an atmosphere of reverence for academic achievement and the value of education.
 * Where is the independent evidence to support this claim? Another example:
 * The family was Presbyterian and teetotal. Harry's mother was a committed Woman's Christian Temperance Unionist and became World President of the organisation while Harry was at school.
 * Where is the independent evidence to support this claim? Further, what is the relevance of your family's frugality, reticence, hardworking nature, reverence for academic achievement, Presbyterianism, teetotalism, etc…. to your dad's career as a senior diplomat? Knowing these things is great, from a family perspective, but Wikipedia is not a family history project. Wikipedia requires independent research from a third party (not related to your father) who can verify that this background made your dad the man he was. A good example about family background and its importance might be the article on Bob Hawke with these two lines:
 * Ellie Hawke subsequently developed an almost messianic belief in her son's destiny, and this contributed to Hawke's supreme self-confidence throughout his career. At the age of fifteen, he presciently boasted to friends that he would one day become the prime minister of Australia.
 * Notice that both of there two sentences are backed by references from an independent third party. Regrettably, in your dad's article, there are complete sections that are without any form of reference. In other words, we're relying on your personal knowledge; and you have a conflict of interest as you're related to Ralph.
 * So, where to from here? Have there been any independent articles written about your dad? Do you have newspaper clippings about your dad? Is there anything in the National Library of Australia or National Archives of Australia about your dad? All of these are good places to start to develop research. However, I would strongly recommend that you cease editing any article on any family member, due to the perceived WP:COI. I'm happy to help you, where I can. Finally, you asked why I described the article of poor quality. From my personal perspective, the following points may help:
 * lack of references
 * focus on family / personal detail that has little / no clear relevance to your dad's career
 * perhaps overly-lengthy, given your dad's impact on the world relative to other senior Australian diplomats - e.g. look at Philip Flood, Richard Woolcott, or James Plimsoll, the latter, of similar age to your dad. Most of these articles are well-referenced, succinct, and the articles are much shorter in length. It could be argued that each of these senior diplomats achieved much more than your dad… I don't know…..
 * I really hope that helps you. Feel free to chat further. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. I've just noticed that you authored the SMH obituary. That needs to be disclosed to the reader of the article on your dad. It makes the SMH obituary a very weak source as you have a conflict of interest. Some of the language used in the lead two paragraphs is puffery. In short, we need independent third party references to prove your claims; and I'd tone down the language to be factual and remove emotive phrases . Sorry to be the bearer of (more) bad news. Rangasyd (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry to get to this after such a long time. My fault.
 * I understand the principles you are advocating.
 * Of course there are some statements for which independent references can’t be found. The question then is whether there should be an automatic deletion or whether notwithstanding the lack of reference the statement is appropriate. In widely accepted and respected biographies there is always a substantial unreferenced content which assists and orients the reader.
 * Also, when you suggest that what you describe as a “conflict of interest” exists, and suggest that I should not make any further contributions to the article, again I understand that the assumption of bias on the part of a relative is reasonable but there isn’t anyone else I know of who could have added what I have. I introduced my edits because the originators of the article were Esperantists who approached their contribution from a narrow point of view.
 * And this is not family history; it’s an appropriate record of a distinguished career.
 * Ill consult the other articles you’ve mentioned then come back to Ralph to see what I can do to improve the standard of referencing.
 * As to the value of Ralph’s contribution to diplomacy and intelligence, no one can really know without access to records that are permanently embargoed.
 * But he was not made an AC for no reason; and I have conducted interviews with his main professional contemporaries who do not doubt that his contribution was of considerable importance to Australia over a long period.
 * I admire the fact that you and your fellow Wikipedia editors approach your mandates with proper seriousness and rigour. Well done.
 * Sincerely
 * John JohnHarry (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)