User talk:CC2006

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! As the major deletions you made in the Keith Ellison article have been reverted, please begin a discussion on the talk page of that article on what you propose to do before making this edit again. Thanks. Jonathunder 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

On questions of length and content in a biography article
Hi, or welcome if you're new to wikipedia. I noticed you had some concerns with the length of the Keith Ellison article and the content therin. These wiki-guidelines may be of some service to you.

WP:SIZE where this is from:
 * No need for haste
 * Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.

If you feel certain aspects are too long it seems you are arguing they are given “Undue weight” which is talked about under Neutral Point of View (NPOV) at NPOV:
 * Undue weight
 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

If you feel that undue weight is an issue a discussion on whether it should be moved to a sub-page will be helpful, but the following guideline should be kept in mind (also from WP:SIZE)
 * Breaking out a controversial section
 * A relatively trivial fact may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, but inappropriate as the topic of an entire article in itself. In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary. Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article. Be sure that both the title and content of the broken-out article reflect a neutral point of view.

If you find information in a biography article that is poorly cited that information can be immediately deleted as per WP:VERIFY
 * Biographies of living persons
 * Biographical claims about living people need special care because of the effect they could have on someone's life, and because they could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to the website as a whole, not only to the main namespace.
 * This does not include newspapers but does include blogs and the like as per WP:V:
 * Self-published sources (online and paper)
 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Thank you for your time, enjoy your future wiki-editing.Wowaconia 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)