Jump to content

Talk:Victoria Wells Wulsin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 05:20, 11 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject United States}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Reverted text - AIDS research

[edit]

I removed text just added about Wulsin's work with the Heimlich Institute to analyze data on African AIDS patients; the basic facts still remain in the article. What was added was negative information. Wikipedia has very specific criteria on this, which the added text failed: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material.

Specifically:

  • The first cited source, the Cincinnati Beacon, says of itself "The Cincinnati Beacon is an independent news source for Cincinnati, Ohio. We boast an all volunteer, unpaid staff. We are like a Cincinnati blog, Cincinnati newspaper, or Cincinnati internet magazine." For negative information, the criteria here is particularly relevant: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.
  • The second cited "source" was a google search: [1] That is completely unacceptable.
  • Third, the added text uses a source already in the article - [2] to make the claim that "In December 2004, when reporters began asking questions, [Wulsin] and Heimlich terminated the relationship." I was unable to find any indication in the article that the article, published in November 2005, began in 2004, or that a reporter put any questions to Wulsin before she was fired by Heimlich. It's noteworthy that the article says in December 2004, the day after issuing a draft of her report ... Wulsin was fired.. So it appears that a good source was misquoted.

In short, this sort of thing is unacceptable for a wikipedia article about a living person. Information from good sources, accurately stated, is always welcome; this was not. John Broughton 02:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reverted text - again

[edit]
  • The inserted text says Heimlich's widely discredited theory that AIDS patients can be cured by infecting them with malaria; but no (acceptable) source is cited (and, more importantly, even if the theory is discredited, the issue is its status as of late 2004, when Wulsin was hired to analyze data).
  • Dr. Wulsin claims that she was later fired by Dr. Henry Heimlich, a claim which Dr. Heimlich has not verified implies that this is a "he said", "she said" argument. In fact, the "was fired" comes from a magazine article, not a statement by Wulsin, and Heimlich has apparently never disputed the fact.
  • The text AGAIN cites the Cincinnati Beacon, correctly identifying it as a blog (kudos); but blogs are UNACCEPTABLE as sources. Moreover, even if what is cited is true (that the blog got a copy of the report and said they were going to post it, and the Wulsin campaign got there first, but added a cover sheet), it fails the test of being IMPORTANT. If the report has damaging information, then QUOTE the report, in the article. If the cover sheet CONTRADICTS the report, then point that out (trivia excepted, please).
  • It is NOT news if a cover sheet of a report contains information beyond what is in a report. I concede that the title "Executive Summary" could be considered misleading, but since the fourth paragraph of the cover sheet discusses the Radar Online article, it should be obvious to the reader that the cover sheet is not just an executive summary of the report. In any case, this is trivia inappropriate for a wikipedia article. John Broughton 07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

It seems rather clear that the author(s) of this article think very highly of this candidate of the upcoming election. This article needs to be objective enough that a person with beliefs each or neither side could read it without a problem. Rockcutter88 14:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed much of the text of the 2005 special election - specifically, a lot of "campaign literature" stuff.
As for the rest of the article, it would be helpful if you would point out a few sentences you consider NOT to be objective, so others can better understand your concerns. John Broughton | Talk 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV disputed tag

[edit]

I have placed the NPOV disputed tag on this page because (a) it continues to cite sources not deemed reliable/neutral, (b) the subject is a political candidate, and (c) that strongly suggests political motivation. The inappropriateness of citing a blog has previously been addressed; similarly, citing a political candidate's webpage while possibly more reliable, would best be balanced (or replaced) by a source from a more neutral source. If someone knows of a source that can verify these items, please reference them. Until these issues are resolved, I don't think this article meets Wikipedia criteria. 02:55, 28 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.236.66 (talk • contribs)

I'm removing that tag unless you can come up with a better reason and/or specifics. (b) and (c) are not good ones; if they were, the NPOV tag would be on EVERY wikiepedia article about a candidate, which certainly isn't the case. Regarding (a), it continues to cite sources not deemed reliable/neutral, the article cites exactly FIVE sources: two links to the SOTENI International, the non-profit Wulsin founded; one to the report she issued in December 2004 (including its cover sheet/executive summary); one to a magazine article; and one to a poll. All five of those are acceptable (as they are used) under WP:RS, as far as I can see. (And two external links, one to a League of Women Voters page, one to the candidate's website - surely you don't object to these?)
So - exactly what wording, and exactly what sources in this article do you object to? (Please list the top one or two, only, for starters.) And exactly what part of WP:RS and/or WP:NPOV do you believe they violated?? (Please provide specific wording.) Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 16:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]

The following was posted today at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies by User:72.49.236.66:

Talk:Victoria Wells Wulsin--Cincinnati area physician running for Congress; disputed material appears to be repeatedly reposted, with poor sources. Anyone able to provide unbalanced source re: subject's former employment by Heimlich Institute? 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) interested voter

I'll let others respond first. John Broughton | Talk 16:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like only secondary sources should be used - Cincinnati's Business Courier and ABC News qualify. Reliance on primary sources, such as scanned fundraising letters and other campaign materials, is not a good idea for interpreting this material. I would recommend that no campaign materials be used in content unless backed by RS.Parkwells (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politics: primary v. election

[edit]

Wulsin was the Democratic candidate twice for the Congressional seat, not three times. She did not win the primary for the special election in 2005, so was not the Democratic candidate that year.Parkwells (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

The draft report should not be used, as it has not been published, and it was deleted from the Internet, so was deleted here. ABCNews comments on it and its interview with Wuslin can be used. Do not bother using ABC's quotes from Schmidt's fundraising letter - it was incorrect, but the campaign and election are over - don't give her more publicity. Politicker has a dead link, so delete Black's endorsement after Wuslin won the Democratic primary - also outdated by events.Parkwells (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Victoria Wells Wulsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Victoria Wells Wulsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria_Wells_Wulsin&oldid=1206088508"