User talk:Cgettings

Hello, if you have any comments or questions for me; please put them here. Cgettings (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

GATA
I have to admit that: a) the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee article had been around for some time and b) the AfD discussion was not exactly a resounding "delete". But we had better do it by the rules. I have e-mailed you the old version and yours. Please feel free to: re-instate the article at User:Cgettings/sandbox (Cgettings:USERNAME/GATA was not a valid user space title), spell "committee" correctly, fix those horrible naked URLs, make sure the links establish notability and raise the matter at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the instruction and prior version of the article. I have never made a new article before.  I read the "first article" advice; I thought that I was putting my draft on a sub-page to my own page.  I wasn't finished at all forming the links and editing the text, hence the naked URLs, but I wanted to see how the markup language worked.  I guess my mistake forming the user space title caused it to be visible.  Sorry to toss it out there half baked.  Usually my spelling is flawless.  Thank you also for your patience.  Cgettings (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Patricia Cloherty
Hi, I've reviewed the history and talk page and found that some users were replacing sourced content with unverified content. Could you explain the content that is being disputed? An admin has protected the page, so edits by IP address aren't allowed anymore. Regarding your edits, you're doing the right thing by providing verified content and starting a discussion on the article talk page to resolve the dispute. I'll see what I can do to cleanup the article. Thanks. Netalarm 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Netalarm. Here's my take:  It seems that one party, a registered user but also sometimes not logged in & using IP only, is deleting properly sourced and notable biographical info.  This includes that she is a director of the New York Stock Exchange, a member of Forbes "Midas List" of important investors, and a recipient of President Putin's "Order of Friendship" among other things.  Then, the editor inserts statements that Cloherty was "removed" as president of her current investment fund Delta, that the Delta fund was subject to a "takeover" by another fund, UFG, and that Cloherty fled the country. The errant registered editor sometimes cites the article in Private Equity International as the source of this derogatory information, but when you actually read the article itself, it most assuredly does not say these things. Its a subtle defamation.  Some unregistered user -- maybe Cloherty herself -- periodically reverts the vandalism.


 * There may well be something going on between UFG and Delta; Cloherty does say in the article that a merger is being considered. But first, this is a biography of a living person so we are obligated to a very high standard of authenticity.  Second, even if her current fund was involved in a "takeover," that stuff happens all the time.  It seems to be a fairly small news item vs. being a defining element of a three paragraph biography of an otherwise notable career spanning decades with numerous presidential appointments and accolades.


 * So I reverted the blanked information, then included the reference to the Private Equity International article as a concession, despite feeling it was not encyclopedic but merely news. Presumably we will have to wait for more news of whether a merger actually occurs and then change it again. I am not even sure it belongs in a biography, this is not an article about the Delta fund, its about Patricia Cloherty. I am totally open for suggestions, I am a newbie.  Thanks.  Cgettings (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad with that edit, I thought something was wrong when I ran an automated script on that page. xD. You're absolutely right in that only verified information should be in a biography of a living person. I think you have a pretty clear understanding of Wikipedia's policy in this area. The problem is with the IP editor that is continually removing cited information. On your part, you can continue to add encyclopedic information about Patricia Cloherty as long as it's sourced. I'll continue to monitor this article and revert vandalism accordingly too. Thanks, and happy editing!  Netalarm  23:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the information about Delta being taken over by UFG, this is a fact. Cloherty was removed by Delta's board of directors at the request of the limited partners. This fact is referred to in the article by Private Equity International and is commonly known in the Russian business community. I will provide additional information on this topic for the biography since Wikipedia should provide the most up to date information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.106.236.131 (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee
Hi Cgettings, I'll respond to your questions here, rather than the article talk page, since I'm going to be long-winded, and I'll talk about some Wikipedia policies. The GATA article was deleted three times before I took a run at rewriting it. The first deletion was not given due process in my opinion. The second two attempts were badly done, and should have been deleted. Because of that history, I saw that the article would need bulletproof reliable sources (see WP:RS) or it would be deleted again.

An article about a controversial organization will typically be more subject to edit-warring, game-playing, and Wikilawyering. For that reason, you'll be greatly helped by closely studying the Wikipedia editing policies I mention. Some of the content and references in your sandbox version will be a great addition to the article. Some of them run afoul of various policies that may not be a problem on many articles, but wouldn't stand up under close scrutiny.

This is just my opinion on the content in your sandbox, and the references.
 * The first two sentences are a great addition, and the fact that they are referenced (and also attributed) to GATA's own website is fine, imo.
 * The next couple of paragraphs aren't referenced. Nearly everything on a controversial subject will need to be referenced to third-party, neutral, high-quality Reliable Sources (see caveat below). In addition, there appears to be Original Research or Synthesis (see WP:OR). The statement "This would violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890" would be your own synthesis, unless there is a reference stating that "GATA charges that this would violate..." Same goes for the last two sentences of that paragraph, and several other statements in your version.
 * The GATA website can be used for some statements, but even when it's about their "History", for example, it needs to be stated that "according to GATA, they were founded...", etc.
 * The first para of the "Statements..." section looks like a well-referenced and good addition to me. Greenspan's testimony looks like Synthesis to me, since he doesn't once mention GATA.
 * Court documents are considered a Primary Source, and are not ideal or even allowed on WP articles. You need a reliable, third-party Secondary Source reporting about the Primary Source. Otherwise it's your own interpretation.
 * James Turk is not a notable, neutral commentator, as far as I know.
 * "Statistical and Economic evidence" looks like Original Research, even if it were referenced to the GATA site.
 * The Ron Paul info would be a great addition, with its good references.
 * I think you could include claims by GATA from its website, since the article is about GATA. But if the article became too much of that, then it could be argued that it was Undue Weight (WP:UNDUE) or Soapboxing (see WP:SOAP).

Keep in mind that these are just my opinions, and that I'm giving you the highest standards so that any additions will remain. Other editors may give you other advice. Like yourself, I'm not involved in any way with, or against, GATA. I just wanted to see an article about an interesting and notable group here. I'll keep an eye on the article as you edit, and please feel free to ask me any questions. Priyanath talk 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extensive comments. I won't try to rebut all of your points because the fact you made them at all means my article falls short. I will go back and make the references more clear.  Generally, though I would offer the following clarifications:
 * Re: your second point on "next couple of paragraphs; what I thought I was doing was summarizing, not synthesizing. Those next two paragraphs are really the essence of the GATA position, gathered from hundreds of pages of material they've published.


 * From the wiki guide: "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."


 * I believed that all of the references and citations for the whole article support and reference that these two paragraphs are the position of GATA & regarding their reason for being. I'll find the most applicable GATA citations and attach them right up front.


 * Second, re Greenspan; correct he never mentions GATA, but GATA refers to his testimony in support of their contention. It seemed most appropriate to provide Greenspan's original statements linked to the original Federal Reserve source, rather than state "GATA said Greenspan said" linked to the GATA website. Maybe my thinking is backward here.


 * Or, perhaps I need to change the headers from "Statements and Documentary Evidence" to "Statements and Documentary Evidence Cited by GATA" and point to where they appear on GATA's website? I was trying to make both this section, and the next one "Statistical and economic evidence" appear as sub-headers to the prior one "GATA case for Gold Price Fixing." My intent was to summarize what GATA says they believe, lay out & reference the arguments they make, then lay out & reference the rebuttals that their critics make. Otherwise if I just point everything back to GATA's website, its just a regurgitation of their content. In that sense, could the whole article be referenced only with links back to their website?


 * I'm not sure that is right, although I see that view, since the article is about "GATA." The article is not about "Price fixing of gold" it is a about "an "organization" that believes that there is price fixing of gold.  The subject of the article is not "position X." The subject of the article is "organization Q," which advocates "position X."   I want to investigate how similar articles are handled. Thanks for the policy guidance.


 * Also note, I am not deliberately trying to provide any original research. (Particularly in the long middle of my article, I am not even sure I completely UNDERSTAND the economic and statistical arguments they are making.)  I am fascinated by the GATA and gold topic, though, and have read hundreds of pages of the material they present.  I've been going out and trying to verify when they make a statement or claim on their website, whether it is actually supported by the sources they cite.  I do believe that IF their contention was true, it would be very important for the world economy.  But I am now confused and think maybe the GATA article should be short and there should be a long article about the "price fixing of gold."  Help! ;-)


 * I am glad for your input (and glad I left it in the sandbox instead of dumping it out there...). I'll start by adding the material you think IS appropriate, and take the rest under advisement for now. Thank you very much. Cgettings (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, I tend to go extremely by the book - not in trying to cut an article down, but because I want to be very sure that my additions will withstand any wikilawyering. The original research thing might be borderline - if you need to add a bit of background to their claims, that may be fine. But having an entire paragraph or more, to me, says it should be in another article. I would lean toward keeping everything to what GATA says. But feel very, very free to cross the very fuzzy lines I mention, because it may stick after all. Partly I was going on my encounter with the other editor, now apparently 'retired', who was calling me on every single thing I added to the article. Primary Sources will get you in trouble, though. And knowing the policies inside/out will help you in the long run. Priyanath talk 21:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I actually do want to go by the book too -- I just don't know what is in the book! I am going to read more of the policies you mention. Re: my confusion on an article about "the organization" vs. an article about "what the organization believes;" its easy when the existence of the subject is undeniable like "iron." No one would dispute that "iron" exists and is worthy of an article.  But in this case -- "price fixing of gold" -- there is a whole camp that argues that the subject "does not even exist."  So is it appropriate or notable enough to make a new article about it? It seems that a good place for the topic would be in the article about the organization that believes it.  But then we'd be left with a problem of what to cite where.  In computer programming, its generally considered better design to have more, smaller routines than fewer larger blocks of code.  Maybe its the same with these articles? Thanks for your patience Cgettings (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a clear answer. I think it would be difficult to write an article on "Claims of price fixing of gold" that wasn't just a soapbox. I would tend to include some of that here for background, but it still needs to be sourced to reliable sources. And I imagine others will give you different opinions, so my last suggestion would be to just start and see what happens. Priyanath talk 01:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point clearly. I happened upon another article:  Opposition to military action against Iran which seems similar. Its big and at first glance is well referenced.  Is it merely listing those who are opposed or is it a soapbox?  I might start it and see what happens, but not tonight.... Thanks and Cheers! Cgettings (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism on Patricia Cloherty
At this point, I'm still assuming that the editor is attempting to improve the article, as Wikipedia's assume good faith policy suggests. However, I'm not quite sure that this editor is understanding some key policies and how he or she is violating them. There have been multiple attempts by other people to notify this editor about his or her disruptive actions (including 2 unsourced content warnings), but the user does not seem to take the suggestions into consideration.

If this user continues to ignore the warnings and continues to add unverified content, they would constitute as vandalism. My hope is that he takes part in the discussion and we can all work towards a solution to this dispute. After all, these is only one version of the truth, so there really shouldn't be factual disputes taking place. Special:Contributions/Happy225 may be of interest to you. Happy225 has never edited any other article on Wikipedia, and has never really discussed his edits. The account was created on 07:01, February 11, 2009, and his first edit was done at 07:11 to Patricia Cloherty. It seems quite obvious that he only created an account to modify the page.

So at this point, let's hope he responds. But if he doesn't, he could be blocked for engaging in edit wars (and/or vandalism by adding uncited content). His edits do constitute as vandalism. Remember, the 3RR does not apply when reverting obvious vandalism. Thanks! Netalarm 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I had seen the contributions page and agree with you. I also put a note on his talk page asking him to give me the 3rd party cites and offered I'd happily put them in. The deleting of content with good citations is less explainable re; misunderstanding policy. Appreciate your looking out.  Thanks. Cgettings (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)