Talk:Chet Orloff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Could someone explain what the references to and discussion of Tramposch are doing in this article? Anything "bad" that he may have done doesn't see to have any bearing on a biography of Orloff. This is not to say that (likely) socking was the right solution, but I don't see how it's relevant here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the COI edits and removal of referenced information by three different newly registered accounts were some serious red flags that some non-WP:NPOV editing was going on. I recognize that these are likely new editors, and eventually, reversions and requests to discuss on the talk page led to a message on my talk page last night which I will post here and then comment below. --Esprqii (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
hi, not sure if my earlier not got through to you as it doesn't appear on your talk list below. Both Chet Orloff and I request that any Reference to bill Tramposch be deleted from his wiki biography. We would appreciate it if you, as editor, deleted the reference. It is not relevant to his biography. Thanks very much---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shednight (talkcontribs) 03:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I do think the tenure of the previous director is relevant. I suppose it is debatable whether it belongs in Orloff's biography as well as in the Oregon Historical Society article where it definitely belongs. However, no article about Jimmy Carter would be complete without a mention of the Watergate scandal in the previous administration as it explains a key factor in Carter's election. Similarly, any reader of Orloff's biography might wonder why Orloff returned.
There is a valid concern of WP:UNDUE in any short biography, but in this case, since the information is not negative towards Orloff, I don't see a problem with keeping it. Ideally an expanded biography would put it into more context. --Esprqii (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflicts) I think there are two problems, and I can't tell which one the sockpuppet/meatpuppet is concerned about:
  • Mentions of Tramposch's name isn't necessary on an article about Orloff.
  • Mentions of turmoil or problems at OHS are incorrect. This encompasses the Tramposch thing, but is a larger scope than it.
All four of the new editors appear to support the second position, and one of the four also edited the OHS page supporting that viewpoint. Removing any mentions of turmoil at OHS is improper. It implies WP:COI, WP:OWN, and WP:POV issues, among other things. However, the mention of Tramposch isn't terribly necessary, though it sets up the problems at OHS very well.
For context, here's a quote from the reference that is being removed:

He replaces former director William J. Tramposch, who resigned in March after two years of turmoil that prompted staff members to complain that his style was dictatorial and was ruining the society. Approximately 30 staff members resigned during Tramposch's tenure.

The turmoil provided the backdrop for the annual meeting, but no one spoke of it directly.

Hopefully Shednight and Mr. Orloff himself (I always called him Chet) can provide more sources to flesh out his biography. tedder (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I definitely concur with Tedder and Esprqii that this information absolutely belongs in the OHS page. Taking it out of there is simply POV-warring. For this page, my argument against including basically falls under WP:UNDUE, because for me Esprqii's analogy doesn't hold up here, since political elections really aren't the same as corporate hiring decisions. I don't see why I need to know why the previous person left in order to understand the simple fact that Orloff returned (which is what is important to Orloff's "story"). For an analogy that makes more sense to me, compare Steve Jobs#Return to Apple and Apple Inc.#1994–1997: Attempts at reinvention. The former (the article about Jobs himself) only mentions that he returned to the company when NeXT was purchased by Apple; the latter also includes the information about Jobs' predecessor being ousted. I think the same logic applies here: this article should simply explain that Orloff left and then later returned, while the OHS article should explain the details of why Tramposch left and was replaced by Orloff. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The info should be in the OHS article, but here it should really be limited to a mention that he returned after his predecessor left amid turmoil. No need to name the predecessor or specifics in this article. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
So we're saying we want to take out accurate, cited, relevant information from an article? I can see that in similar types of articles, this type of detail might not have found its way into the article in the first place, but it did and it adds context and flavor to the hiring. If this were Orloff's 200-page biography, would we put it in? Page 148 would be pretty dull without it. In the Jobs example, by the way, that section in Jobs' article does in fact name his predecessor (Gil Amelio), and briefly describes that he was ousted. Perhaps a compromise here is to mention Tramposch and state that he was dismissed due to controversy about his management style and leave it at that.
I'm troubled by the whole series of events. The subject of the article created an account and deleted cited information. Innocent mistake, sure. But then he created, or recruited others to create, other accounts to do the same thing. That's no accident, that's malicious and willful censoring of an event that no one disputes occurred. Since that time, those editors have sat back and watched and made no attempt at explanation or expressions of remorse. This ain't no way to run an encyclopedia. --Esprqii (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
While it is troubling that newbie editors went to the lengths they did, that can and should be handled separately from the content issue. Unlike our homeless hating Pioneer Courthouse Square sock-extraordinaire, the editors here have a legitimate content issue. We may not all agree what should be in the article concerning the OHS drama, but I think we can all agree it is a gray issue. So we need to move on from the socks (the semi-protection seems to have worked) and focus solely on the content issue. I think Esprqii's compromise is fine, despite the Ducks woopping up on his beloved Trees (I'd say there is always next year, but the Luck will have run out). Drama out. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Well...I still think the information should be removed entirely. But I suppose I could live with shortening it, at least by taking out the 30+ resignations. And there's no need for 4 citations (that's also a kind of WP:UNDUE). But to answer your more general questions, Esprqii, yes, we do want to remove cited, accurate information from the article. The question we're asking is, is it relevant? For example, this article says he was in the Peace Corps. Would you add the purpose of the Peace Corps ("To promote world peace and friendship through a Peace Corps, which shall make available to interested countries and areas men and women of the United States qualified for service abroad and willing to serve, under conditions of hardship if necessary, to help the peoples of such countries and areas in meeting their needs for trained manpower.") to this article? It gives a greater context for the work he did, possibly speaking to his motives for joining, or to the public perception of him after he left...but no, you can see I'm being specious. Of course that doesn't belong here. The question is, to what degree does this example resemble the one about Tramposch?
Actually, that leads me to a better question: does anyone have any sources that directly connect what happened to Tramposch with Orloff specifically being chosen to return to the OHS? If not, that makes me feel even more that the info doesn't belong. I don't mean sources that verify that Tramposch left, leaving a vacancy (that's already been established). I mean, something explicitly linking Tramposch's seemingly poor tenure with the specific decision for Orloff to be hired/choose to work at OHS? Like, did Orloff ever say something like, "I hope to put behind me the problems of the last 2 years", or did the board say, "Due to the problems of the previous director, we have decided to rehire Orloff as he has the experience to return us to a sense of normalcy"? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

() I think the 30+ resignations is core to the story of OHS and Tramposch/Orloff. I can see removing Tramposch for BLP reasons, but the narrative of Orloff returning to OHS would be lost without the "resignations" and "turmoil" aspects. The quotation above gives some good context; the following rounds it out. This is from the "FORMER ASSISTANT TO HEAD HISTORICAL SOCIETY" article:

Orloff, 42, replaces former director Bill Tramposch, who resigned in March after two years of turmoil that had prompted staff members to complain that his dictatorial style was ruining the society. Nearly 30 members resigned during Tramposch's tenure.

``We conducted a nationwide hunt for the best candidate, said Robert Huntington, board president. ``We looked for the best and we found that individual right here in Oregon.


``The most important function of the director at this point is to build the trust between the staff and the director, and the board and the community, he said.

``Secondly, it is to build staff morale. Without those two things I don't think anything can move.

Orloff enters the 7,000-member society just months after staff morale hit an all-time low.

Tramposch's rocky reign at the society began after longtime director Tom Vaughan left the society in 1989. Shortly into his first year, the society 's board of directors set up a special investigative committee to evaluate Tramposch's performance after clamorous staff complaints about getting warning letters and suspensions.

In June 1990, the board decided to throw its support behind Tramposch, which prompted Sherry Vaughan, Tom Vaughan's wife, to resign. Sherry Vaughan had been director of the society 's North Pacific Studies Center.

Another committee to evaluate Tramposch's 19-month tenure was called in February. He resigned March 6 and was replaced by interim director, Millard McClung.

Many staff members thought Orloff would be appointed back when Tom Vaughan stepped down. But Orloff said he thinks now that he's even more prepared for the job.

In my mind, this shows the relevance of the Tramposch, 30 resignations, and "turmoil" to the Orloff article. Qwyrxian, it isn't as clear as the A->B link you were looking for, but it's very close to it, yes? I'm curious your thoughts. tedder (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I think that does show the link I was looking for. Could we make that more explicit in the article? Currently, the article says,

In 1991, he returned to OHS as executive director, replacing Bill Tramposch, who had resigned after a tumultuous two-year tenure in which approximately 30 staff members had resigned due to complaints about Tramposch's leadership style.

How would people feel about making this read,

In 1991, Orloff was rehired as the exeutive director of the Oregon Historical Society to replace Bill Tramposch. Tramposch's term had been marked by poor morale and the resignations of many employees, and Orloff was specifically hired to build staff morale and trust between the organization and its stakeholders.

This seems to put the connection between Tramposch & Orloff into better context, to me. I'm a little worried that the end of the second sentence (from "...and Orloff") may be a bit too close of a paraphrase, though. Any feelings on this type of wording? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. It's not too close to the original in my mind. Thanks Qwyrxian. tedder (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chet Orloff. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)