User talk:Anguti

Paul Okalik
Firstly, the volume of text devoted to the incident is hardly excessive; it's one single (and not even particularly long) paragraph in a very long article.

Secondly, there's not much point in suppressing details that are present right in the cited sources — if a person can click on the reference link and see exactly what he said, who he said it to and who he said it about, then there's no value in keeping that information out of our article. It would certainly be inappropriate if the source itself was suppressing those details and its inclusion here was being done on the basis of purported but unverifiable personal knowledge — but if it's right in the source we're using, then hiding the swear word is really the only possible reason for burying it here.

Thirdly, the primary reason that it is worth mentioning the actual details is that the incident was itself the primary reason that Elisapee Sheutiapik took a leave of absence from her job as mayor to run against him in the last legislative election — so without the background, our article is failing to provide the basic context for why she ran in the election in the first place.

And finally, there isn't a "long history" of many people insisting that it's inappropriate. At least, not involving people who aren't you. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bearcat, responding to your response, on my user page:

(You said) Firstly, the volume of text devoted to the incident is hardly excessive; it's one single (and not even particularly long) paragraph in a very long article. You are right, things have calmed down a bit, from examining the record, I can see that when the topic was hot this were three and then four paragraphs on the topic and now it is reduced to two. What this means to me is that the incident incited a great deal of heat at the time, but in the overall historic context, this is a footnote. It does provide an example how detail can be of some import at a certain point of heat in a debate or political movement, but not be of encyclopedic import - with any historic perspective. It does not tell us if we have calmed the dialogue down to the point where the text is appropriately historical on this issue, rather than acting as a current affairs commentary (which it clearly was at one point) or news oriented (it may even have gone this far) - neither of which is the purpose of Wikipedia..as you clearly already know. So the editing down is consistant with a more WIkipedia approach, but it does not tell us that we have arrived at the neutral POV position, only that the issue has flared up and required attention. ''(You said) Secondly, there's not much point in suppressing details that are present right in the cited sources — if a person can click on the reference link and see exactly what he said, who he said it to and who he said it about, then there's no value in keeping that information out of our article. It would certainly be inappropriate if the source itself was suppressing those details and its inclusion here was being done on the basis of purported but unverifiable personal knowledge — but if it's right in the source we're using, then hiding the swear word is really the only possible reason for burying it here.'' Why should we label this edit as surpressing the details - that is exactly what footnotes are for - to provide supporting details on items of substance which are not of adequate significance to merit being in the main text. So you need to ask the question: Is this text (the names of individuals involved, the wording of the statement) vital/useful/healthful to the storyline? Is Mr. Sheutiapik's leave of absence important in the overall context. Or is "abusive language by bio subject, directed at office holder x, caused officer holder y to choose to run against the bio subject. That is the important story line, while footnotes are meant for supporting details.  (You said) Thirdly, the primary reason that it is worth mentioning the actual details is that the incident was itself the primary reason that Elisapee Sheutiapik took a leave of absence from her job as mayor to run against him in the last legislative election — so without the background, our article is failing to provide the basic context for why she ran in the election in the first place. This may be true, although unsupported, but it does not make it of biographic significance. The logic that this requires insertion of the text would suggest that alternative but equally insulting words would not have had that effect? ''(You said) And finally, there isn't a "long history" of many people insisting that it's inappropriate. At least, not involving people who aren't you. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)'' I think this is either an error or an assumption. There actually is quite a significant history, given the relative triviality of the topic, which is what enboldened me to approach you despite your clearly extensive (and superior - to me at least) Wikipedia skills. The other editors I refer to are, without too much research: Moxy October 31, 2010 IP user February 21, 2009 Neither of whom is me. In each case it was you who reverted the text. I think the rules suggest that we are to maintain a professional distance from these issues and avoid name calling or implication of motive, yes? You seem to be both fair and stubborn in your approach to this..........can you examine the context yourself, see if it carries some personal impact reflection or import which would render this detail more important to your perception than to the historic observer and consider whether these details: the words said, and the names of the other actors, are worthy of main text, or if they are, looking at a ten year political history (to date - we do not know if it ends here or continues) are significant to the main line of history for this bio subject. I suggest that the consensus has been that the details are "footnoteable" but it is the context and the offices which would survive in the main text. I would agree that Elisapee Sheutiapik may be independently notable and defensible for inclusion given her broad political participation during this same period. Consider what might be in the bio subject's obit.......okay maybe we go broader than that, but think context. Thanking you once again for your considered and considerate responses.

Anguti