Talk:University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike

Addition of student org name
All newspaper articles identify STAND (Students Towards A New Democracy) as the student organization who organized student with workers, and it was the same group who organized the student side of the hunger strike. I'm adding those in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.105.6 (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Documentation needed for opinions expressed
"Supporters of an NLRB-supervised election have expressed concern that card check is open to possible coercion of employees by union representatives. Supporters of card check point out that union representatives cannot 'coerce' employees to sign a card, save through physical coercion; and that NLRB-supervised elections have proven to be susceptible to possible coercion of employees by their managers, including firing pro-union employees on the eve of an election."

Does this belong in wikipedia? Can anyone actually document what supporters of this or that have claimed about the other side? Or is this editorializing (on both sides)? I left in the article what seemed to be factual, rather than editorial, and moved this here so we can discuss whether/how to reinsert the above material. Thanks again, in advance, for reasoned discussion (esp. lawyer2b, miamidolphins3). 69.180.103.161 13:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This section was edited since I last saw it. As it was before, that there was no documentation supporting that those opinions were actually expressed didn't bother me too much.  Now what is of concern to me are the word choices "point out" and "proven".  Verbs like "point out", "report", or "remind" (and obviously, proven) make it sound that the idea being expressed is a known fact rather than a matter of opinion.  I feel very strongly that "point out" should be changed to something like "allege" or "claim" and that "proven to be" should be changed to simply "are". Lawyer2b 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good; I still wonder whether we even need this section, or whether the "card check vs. secret election" section stands just fine on its own, without all this speculation about who is concerned about what about whom. Still, for the sake of discussion, here's the revised paragraph (I removed the word 'possible' twice, since it seems redundant):

"Supporters of an NLRB-supervised election have claimed that card check is open to coercion of employees by union representatives. Supporters of card check claim that union representatives cannot 'coerce' employees to sign a card, save through physical coercion; and that NLRB-supervised elections are susceptible to coercion of employees by their managers, including firing pro-union employees on the eve of an election."

Other concerns about this paragraph per se? And is it needed in the article? 69.180.103.161 14:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm what you'd call an "inclusionist" so I think it should be in there, assuming it will be NPOV. Lawyer2b 18:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Speculation on the disparity between these numbers has, in general, been of two sorts: some have claimed that continuing to work was equivalent to refusing to support the strike. Others have claimed that continuing to work could reflect fear of reprisal from UNICCO." Well, what shall we do here? 69.180.103.161 14:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't think that comment belongs in the article because it is loaded with POV. You can only observe if someone is "not striking" or "striking" and "continuing to work" or "not continuing to work" and I think their behavior should be described like that.  Without hearing from the worker, whether they "support" or "refuse to support" the strike is speculatation.  Just as a worker could "support the strike" and not strike themselves (e.g. if they need the immediate benefits of working), a worker could strike but not honestly support it (e.g. striking due to peer pressure, etc.)  Unsupported comments speculating on the reasons why a worker is "not striking" and "continues to work" probably shouldn't be there at all.
 * 2) That comment references two numbers: one is percentage of workers who signed union cards, the other is the percentage of workers who are striking.  The two are totally different things.  In my opinion, the estimated percentage of workers who signed union cards should be in the "Card check vs. secret ballot" section because it specifically references what a "card check" is.  Any estimates of striking/non-striking workers should be in a section on the strike in general.   Lawyer2b 15:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ULP charges and NLRB complaints
A colleague will be forwarding the missing links to me soon; should have them posted in a few days. 69.180.103.161 02:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: reintroduce paragraph when I get the links: "Currently, a central issue in the ongoing strike is the question of illegal intimidation, spying on, and firing of pro-union employees. In January 2006, the NLRB issued a formal complaint against UNICCO for violating the rights of custodial workers at UM after a lengthy investigation of charges brought against UNICCO by custodial workers were found to have merit. Since the complaint was issued in January 2006, more than a dozen new charges against UNICCO have surfaced at the University of Miami and Nova Southeastern University, in neighboring Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Charges filed by UNICCO against SEIU Local 11 were dismissed by the NLRB. No NLRB-supervised election could take place until these ULP charges are dealt with. " 69.180.103.161 03:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Appropriateness of op ed pieces
Questions about this: An April 27, 2006 Miami Herald editorial supported UNICCO's position, arguing that "the best way to get an accurate and fair determination of what the workers want is through a secret ballot administered by the National Labor Relations Board." 

Does a newspaper's opinion count as a credible source to be listed in wikipedia? Why is the newspaper's opinion (which BTW is made without argumentation, and without sources) counting as relevant here? If we open a new section on op ed pieces, then of course I think this could fit. Along with many other links I'll be glad to add. But otherwise, this piece is a POV, not an objective reportage. If we have a section that is clearly about POVs, then it would fit. But should this article have such a section? 69.180.103.161 03:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought Lawyer2b's addition of the Miami Herald editorial citation and link was a constructive addition and should be put back. The press releases or any relevant links can be added to the external links section, or as citations, in support of 69.180.103.161's suggestion. I'll put the Miami Herald language back in this weekend, unless there is some reasonable objection. MiamiDolphins3 16:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

MiamiDolphins3, Please address the questions posed above, namely:

Questions about this: An April 27, 2006 Miami Herald editorial supported UNICCO's position, arguing that "the best way to get an accurate and fair determination of what the workers want is through a secret ballot administered by the National Labor Relations Board." [1]

Does a newspaper's opinion count as a credible source to be listed in wikipedia? Why is the newspaper's opinion (which BTW is made without argumentation, and without sources) counting as relevant here? If we open a new section on op ed pieces, then of course I think this could fit. Along with many other links I'll be glad to add. But otherwise, this piece is a POV, not an objective reportage. If we have a section that is clearly about POVs, then it would fit. But should this article have such a section? 69.180.103.161 03:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

129.171.178.139 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in lawyer2b's response to this. I would have no objections to including this paragraph, but it would have to be in the right section (i.e., one marked "Editorials" or "Opinions" or what have you). Otherwise, it could have the appearance of having an op ed piece snuck into another section as though it were an objective report. I'm sure no one here would want that. 129.171.178.139 17:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not responding until now. I just saw this discussion.  Opinions, in general, can be included in wikipedia when they are deemed important enough and so long as when they are included it is clear that what is stated is an opinion and not an objective fact.  I think a newspaper's opinion should be treated like any other and since there was already a section devoted to the Herald 's coverage of the event I thought the newspaper's opinion was appropriate for inclusion in that section.  My edit mentioned the statement was an "editorial" but if you feel there is a better way to make it clear that it merely expressed an opinion and was not a "report" I am certainly open to suggestions.  Lawyer2b 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. I think Micheal fishcl's expert opinion (since he is a labor lawyer in the law school) siding with card check, which was in an earlier hurrican article, would be far more usful. i'm willing to pull it, otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.49.239 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't have any problem with including a UM professor's opinion in the article but can you clarify your above comment? What thing I said did you disagree with?  What are you willing to pull?  What do you mean by "otherwise"? Lawyer2b 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-striking workers
I moved this sentence here so we can discuss it:

"Despite the severity of the allegations, however, the vast majority of UM's custodial workers--an estimated 80 percent--have refused to honor the strike and have continued working."

First, who has done this estimation? Second, who is to decide that these workers have "refused to" honor the strike, as opposed to "are afraid to" honor the strike. Both claims strike me as POV. Third, was the percentage different before and after the wage increase? That seems relevant. 69.180.103.161 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question on the source of the estimation; at the very least it should be identified. I can see your point regarding the POV of either "refused to" or "are afraid to".  I think a good compromise would be to simply say "are not striking and continue to work".  I don't know about any percentage changes until I see the sources of the information. Lawyer2b 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * At the time of the strike both the SEIU and UNICCO released statistics showing that over 75% of the workers did not strike. They could not afford to, and this was used by both sides as evidence for their respective positions. 71.194.228.61 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

lawyer2b, I think your last edit took care of the problems. If anyone comes across information on the percentages of workers striking before vs. after the wage increases, please list it here. Also, if anyone comes across conflicting information on the number of workers striking, please note it as well. It may be clear now, but earlier on, the claims of UNICCO vs. SEIU were rather different. 69.180.103.161 12:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

UM and UNICCO views
I think this article captures the views of the striking workers, though some documentation is needed for the material I have removed. It could use maybe one section better describing the UM and UNICCO views on this. I read the Shalala editorial in the Miami Herald, and that seemed to capture some of those sentiments. I'm sure others have been made too. UM's position, as I understand it, is that they are not in much of a position to do much to end the strike, or even immediately address the wage/insurance issues since these are UNICCO employees and these employees affiliated with UNICCO knowing full well what pay and benefits were being given them. MiamiDolphins3 01:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that sure that the article captures views of the striking workers. It seems to me to lay out the main issues, reports on relevant actions (demonsrations made, resolutions made, etc.). Of course the reasons for a strike are listed in an article about a strike. As far as the university's position goes, we do have a section on university govt responses as well as links to Shalala's dialogue letters. I wouldn't object if someone wanted to start a section called "UNICCO's reponse" or something like that (to parallel other sections on responses to the strike).

In fact, everyone except for the striking workers has web activity that we can link to and thus seem to be documenting something. This makes their views hard to represent in an article like this. 69.180.103.161 12:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Another idea occurred to me: if you want to document UNICCO's response, etc., then perhaps a section can be created, not on Op Ed pieces, but rather on Press Releases. Then you could link to UNICCO's press releases, and also to press releases by UM, the SEIU, STAND, and other organizations that have been involved. This would have the advantage of being a relatively focused section. (I.e., only groups can organize press releases, so we wouldn't be getting into an elephantine documentation of Op Ed pieces.) What do you all think? 69.180.103.161 12:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just saw your suggestion regarding sections/links for press releases. I think that's an excellent idea, but I still think important claims/arguments made in Op-ed pieces should be documented as well. Lawyer2b 16:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hunger Strike
Why is the hunger strike still discussed in present tense, it is not over? I am not sure of the specific details but they should be added to the article. LOuest 04:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding text under appropriate subheadings
"While the strike has generated extensive protests and media attention, it has had minimal impact on custodial services at the university, since, according to UM President Donna Shalala, 75% of the custodians are continuing to report to work. In an April 12, 2006 open letter to the university community, Shalala suggested that a large number of the protesters were organized by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and unaffiliated with the university."

I think both sentences are fine, but wonder what section they really belong in. The section they're now in is called "Vote to strike." What does either sentence have to do with a vote to strike? Please reinsert them as you see fit, but in an appropriate section. Universitytruth 10:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) While I think it's probably true the strike has had minimal impact on custodial services at the university, it's not common knowledge what percentage capacity a custodial workforce can lose before it significantly impacts its performance. Since Shalala's letter only mentions a statistic and doesn't say anything regarding its impact on custodial services, I don't think that inference should be mentioned without further support. 2) I think the rest of the sentence that quotes UM's estimate of the percentage of strikers should go in the "Vote to strike" section because I think it's a good place to put general references about the strike; for example, it currently contains a reference to the date the strike began (different from the vote date) and that it is ongoing. 3) In my opinion, the sentence regarding Shalala's suggestion of the make up of the protesters should go in the  "Demonstration and sit-ins" section. Lawyer2b 15:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Its slightly irrelavent. The herlad article covering the same protest calls everyone their UM students and faculty. Actually, id rather juxtapose it if no one minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.49.239 (talk • contribs)


 * Assuming you're talking about juxtaposing the estimation of percentage of cards signed with the estimation of non-striking workers, I'd ask why and in what section would you put both those statistics? Lawyer2b 13:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting version current and agreeable
I think this page is now in decent shape. Would be good if we could agree on its current state of it, or make any further minor edits, and then basically leave it alone pending future developments. Don't want to see constant bickering over small issues/wording, and the article has attracted some active anon editors. I think the three primary editors have done a decent job reporting the facts objectively, though the article does still read like a good guy (labor) vs. bad guy (UNICCO/UM) story, which it might be in part but isn't entirely, especially given that: 1.) Most workers are not striking. If SEIU is paying strikers, that says a lot about the fact that the working conditions can't be too bad; 2.) All these custodians took this job knowing full well what the pay and benefit structure was. I agree it looks like it's below industry standards, but this shouldn't read like some giant exploitation has been taking place. These were workers who freely affiliated with UNICCO under these terms, and I'm sure some find the job ok; and 3.) There is a union here with its own agenda, and surely they have inflamed the situation. Anyway, good job.  This might now be in good shape, though surely there will be more developments and ultimately--shock!--this will actually probably end.  MiamiDolphins3 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

MiamiDolphins3, just a few points: with the recent agreement, activity on this page has indeed slowed down. There are still some things pending, but I don't expect lots of activity to happen here in the next few months. But I'd feel remiss if I didn't address some of your statements, and since this is a Talk page, that feels appropriate:

First, you say that "[i]f SEIU is paying strikers, that says a lot about the fact that the working conditions can't be too bad;." I don't understand your logic here at all. The point of strike pay (I don't know the exact amount, but it is not even the same amount as they would make on the job) is to help ensure that the workers can perhaps still manage to pay part of their rent, buy food for their children, etc. The workers do lose money over this, but in the hope of a long-term gain.

Second, you say that "[a]ll these custodians took this job knowing full well what the pay and benefit structure was." As though this justified the pay and benefit structure. If you're starving and someone offers you a slice of bread for mowing their lawn, you'll do it, even though you should get a loaf of bread for doing so. The fact that you might be willing to do it is one matter, the justification of the compensation is a different matter. The question of "free affiliation" with employers also strikes me as problematic, because the material conditions for you and me are very different from those of the working poor.

Third, you say that "[t]here is a union here with its own agenda..." Yes, the union's agenda can be described (if you really want to) as increasing its dues base. Here's the catch: what the union brings in is directly related to what the workers make. So in this case, the 'greed' of the union results in higher salaries for the workers. By contrast, the 'greed' of the employer results in lower salaries for the workers (and higher ones for management, such as that of UNICCO's president, who makes five times the amount the head of the SEIU does). My point is that the union's agenda results in better conditions for the workers. That's frankly fine with me. I was never naive enough to believe that the union was a non-profit organization. I think that anyone who is that naive can't take part in a serious discussion about labor issues.

You also mention that "surely they have inflamed the situation." Yes, indeed. That was the point. And I think the work we've done in editing the article represents the inflaming well enough. That is, I think that the article is generally NPOV and objective. If, after all that, it still reads somewhat like good guy vs. bad guy, well, then if that's what the facts suggest, then I don't see why an unbiased reader shouldn't draw that conclusion. Best, Universitytruth 12:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Lunch?
I posted this lunch invitation on User:69.180.103.161's talk page but I don't know if they read it. I'd like to extend it to anybody who works down at UM and helped with the article. Lawyer2b 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've enjoyed editing the strike page with you. I've found you to be a fair and respectful editor and trust you've found me the same. I remember you saying you work at UM. I attended from '85-'89 and graduated from UM with a degree in Psychology. All this editing about UM and the news coverage has made me nostalgic for the campus and I've been thinking of heading down one there one day. Would you care to meet over coffee or lunch? Lawyer2b 15:37, 2 May 2006

Potential bias
The possible benefits of a vote and harm of the card check have been excised from the article &mdash; apparently by general agreement, but it's still wrong. (I think the accusation of possible harassment of employees by other employees who are union members supporters to sign the cards should have been included. Harassment of employees by union staff who are not employees, although (apparently) alleged, is pretty much impossible.)  The article is otherwise fairly close to being balanced, but leaning toward the Union/card check/"living wage" position.

Ah, yes, in regard the ads taken out by the University in favor of a vote &mdash; the neutrality pledge claimed above seems to refer to the union, rather than to methods of choosing whether to have a union. One or the other sections needs to be edited (the section describing the neutrality pledge, or the section alleging violation.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to address the pov issues you raise, though there does not appear to be any significant POV slant to the article, in my view. In any case, I did add a sentence on the perceived value of secret balloting, as advocated by UNICCO, and some other revisions that bring the article up to date.  MiamiDolphins3 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems better. No objection from here to removal of the POV tag, now. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Second AfD Nomination (18 votes to keep vs. 2 to delete)
I do not understand why it is noted that the second AfD on this article was closed without consensus. I count 18 votes for keeping it (many of them "strong" and "speedy" keeps) and a mere 2 votes for deleting it. That seems to represent consensus and, in fact, the second AfD generated more support for keeping the article than the first AfD (10 votes to keep and two to delete), which was closed as "keep". The historical record on these AfDs also should note that the nominee for AfD was the same user and that the combined votes were 28 to keep and four to delete (with two of those four coming from the AfD nominator). Anyway, I'm sure I speak for many in saying I hope we can be done with this "debate" and preserve this worthy article on this important issue. MiamiDolphins3 22:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * quoting from the AfD close:

"The result of the debate was no consensus = keep, discounting about 10 keep votes from seemingly the same person. — Fire Fox  10:28, 28 June '06"
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot certainly rule out a sockpuppet or two, I do know that many of the votes that came in last were from University of Miami faculty members who appear not to have edited on wikipedia before. (A note about the wikipedia article went out on a local listserv.) In short, there may have been some ballot stuffing in that sense -- from people who had good arguments to give, but who are not otherwise wikipedia editors -- but I am certain that there are not ten votes from the same person. About closing the AfD, I do think that the term "rough consensus" would be appropriate, given that only one user gave actual arguments for a delete vote. (I comment on these arguments in the AfD discussion.) In short, I have no doubt but that this page will remain on wikipedia. We just have to watch out for vandals who would call for a VfD without having made any constructive criticisms whatsoever, in order to express their anger that the event even took place and ended as it did. Whether the same user does so three times in a row, or creates a sockpuppet to avoid that appearance, we cannot know. Universitytruth 13:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Censorship
This article is quite biased in favor of the strike. Recommend NPOV workover. Also, my edits as to the status of the student protesters were deleted not as false but as irrelevant, by a censor, Steven, who has very biased opinions here. I cannot possibly fight this trolling, so if you can help, and you know anything about the strike, please edit this article. 71.194.228.61 19:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, polling as to the support for the strike by UM students dropping from around 60% to less than 15% done by students in political analysis classes in the business school should be found and added. 71.194.228.61 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS. What you know is largely irrelevant. What you can source with verifiable, reliable sources is relevant. Please also read censorship and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this edit violates WP:BLP, the Wikipedia policy about information on living persons. This is one of the strictest rules on Wikipedia. In particular, note the sections about reliable sources and the presumption of privacy, especially for people who are not public figures. --Stephan Schulz 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In order to conform with this, I am placing "citation needed" markers on unsourced information and removing irrelvant information, rather than adding any new quality to the article. I am simply not online enough to fight this in any way other than calling on you and others to do the same.  My additions were of no WORSE sourcing quality than what was in the article to begin with:  in fact, the "citation needed" tag seems to indicate that my edits should have been tagged requesting appropriate citations rather than censored.  71.194.228.61 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the policies I named, and also read WP:POINT, which you are violating now. A request for citation is one possibility, but it is never acceptable for a WP:BLP case. Your wild deletion and blind tagging serves no useful purpose. --Stephan Schulz 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want a third opinion, you will need to make it clear what you are asking. Also, if you want a third party to give an opinion, try to keep the arguing to a minimum in 3O questions.
 * - 3O

I've looked at this censorship section (which was cited in the 3O question) and I've browsed the article, I'm still unclear about exactly what you are asking.

It will help the third party if you very clearly state a question. I've placed a recommended format below. It's not an official format, just my suggestion. Thanks. Lsi john 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

topic/3O question
The argument is about the inclusion and exclusion of certain claims. At the time I asked for a 3rd opinion, User:71.194.228.61 tried to add information to this or equivalent versions, finally arriving (via several reverts on either side) at this version. After I reverted again, the user changed position, deleted parts of the article, and added a number of tags to the rest.


 * Allow me to clarify. You're asking an uninvolved, disinterested third party to read two versions and figure out what is different. And then it appears that you are asking for a 3O as to which version is better. Without getting fully involved (and thus probably biased one way or another) that's a big thing to ask, and its no wonder that other editors aren't addressing the 3O request.


 * I, for one, am not qualified to 'pick' the better/more accurate/less biased version, and it's unlikely you'll find anyone who is.


 * It would be more helpful (to me) if you showed diff's to indicate which changes you were debating and then explain viewpoints on why they should or should not be included (assuming thats what you're asking).


 * If you are challenging something specific for RS or V, then cite that diff so a third party can give an opinion on it. Lsi john 19:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I tried to prejudice the case as little as possible. This diff illustrates the addition by User:71.194.228.61. And this diff shows the subsequent deletion and tagging.--Stephan Schulz 19:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that. And, in general, you won't prejudice a case for a neutral third party by simply stating the question clearly and providing diff's if necessary.


 * Now that you provide diff's, it is easy for me to see that the first diff edits did not include citations and the 2nd diff both removed unsourced material and tagged other unsourced material.


 * The question now appears to relate directly to Sourced Material versus Original Research and that can be handled by procedure. When dealing with WP:RS, an opinion is sometimes necessary. When dealing with unsourced material, no opinion is necessary because unsourced material is not permitted.


 * For my convenience, I have changed the way the sources are cited in the article. It appeared that there may have been duplicates and I am (personally) more comfortable with a list of refs at the bottom. Technically I should not have done this without a consensus, and anyone is welcome to revert those edits. If they are left as-is, someone should go through and label/comment them better than I did.


 * The guidelines for editing recommend improving over deleting material. This would involve tagging unsourced material (as was done). However, any editor can remove unsourced material at any time. Unsourced material is generally original research, which is not allowed. We can quote or summarize what has been said elsewhere, but we cannot write our own opinions or conclusions.


 * On that note, this article appears to be full of unsourced material. My recommendation is to go through news reports and properly document the information, tag it for, or delete it.


 * Also, some (all?) of the Miami Herald articles are no longer available. This happens with online news media and there are often copies of those news reports available in archives. I'm not familiar with locating archived copies of news reports, but the Herald links need to be corrected.


 * Though it is allowed, simply deleting things that are added in good faith, is generally taken as more of an overt hostile act and creates tension. If someone adds unsourced material, the polite thing to do is to tag it as fact and allow the contributing editor an opportunity to locate a reference and properly document. Wikipedia guidelines suggest improvement over deletion. Of course common sense should always be used and material which is clearly false or totally unrelated should probably be deleted. A good guideline is Be Bold, Get Reverted, Discuss.


 * The opinions expressed are solely my own.
 * Lsi john 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Involved editors
I would prefer to reinstate the original, fairly long-lived version as a starting point. Apart from the restoration of a previously deleted section and some clean-up, it has been stable for at least 3 months. Some requests for citation may be justified, but on the whole this version seems to be reasonably well sourced.

In my opinion, the additions by User:71.194.228.61 violate WP:V, WP:RS, and in the last incarnation even WP:BLP, and as such are completely inacceptable. I also feel that the deletions and the tag-bombing were not done in good faith, but rather to make a WP:POINT, especially since the edit summary for this edit seems to threaten just such an action.

Disclosure: I'm not particularly involved or knowledgable on this topic. I spend a few months in 2002 as a visiting assistant professor in Miami, so my interest was piqued when I saw the article. It ended up on my watchlist after I restored a paragraph that was deleted in what I assume was vandalism. --Stephan Schulz 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)