Talk:Karen Freeman-Wilson

Untitled

Given that there is no discussion on the talk page regarding the disputed neutrality of the article, I propose removing the tag in one month unless the person making dispute makes a case here. 50.104.103.118 (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

POV tag removed. The tag stated "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2011)" Since there was no discussion here, and no case made about the lack of neutrality in the article, there is apparently no dispute to be resolved. 50.104.90.57 (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have placed a POV (neutrality) tag on this article due to the edits made by Concernedaboutgary. At least one of the sources used to link Freeman-Wilson to alleged unethical practices is an opinion piece from a local newspaper. Another source links to an article requiring payment to view it. I propose a timeline of one month from today to allow the editor time to provide more comprehensive sourcing. Thereafter, and unless the editor (or indeed any editor) provides adequate sourcing, I propose editing the article to reflect the sources provided, including removing any material not sourced or not adequately sourced. Interested viewers or editors are encouraged to contribute to the discussion here with thoughts and concerns. Bennycat (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

One month is generous, should lack of neutrality result in a violation of WP:BLP. If it develops that Concernedaboutgary's primary purpose is adding non-neutral content then a visit to the BLP noticeboard is encouraged. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Original news articles were no longer available for electronic viewing from the Post-Tribune web site. PDf files of the both the August 20, 2001 Post-Tribune article and, the primary source, The 2000 Audit by the Indiana State Board of Accounts have been added to the citation list for unbiased and neutral review by readers. In addition, the Joe Carlson story from the Times Newspaper accounts the local court proceedings of Jojuana Lynn Meeks and represent an actual accounting of individuals who were deposed for testimony prior to complete and full disclosure of activities. It remains unclear to the day who was Individual X and Y. concernecedabout (talk) 10:24:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2001 Post Tribune article states that any inappropriateness in the granting of monies did not rise to a level that required funds to be repaid--in other words, there's no evidence that anything further came of this. My take is that this is a ten year old non-issue; however, if this is included I'd also add from the article that these grants were made to benefit anti-smoking programs, where tobacco companies had targeted minority consumers [1]. Audits and court proceedings are not usually accepted as credible sources, and the Carlson article mentions Freeman-Wilson once, and then as part of testimony given by Meeks [2]. All that, and the username of Concernedaboutgary suggest the likelihood of an agenda. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A State Audit is an official record and report of the State of Indiana. The Audit shows that these grants were made without proper authority and signatory approval from the Governor of the State, the State Board of Accounts, to agencies dispensing of the funds. In addition, Freeman-Wilson and her staff are shown to have pushed these grants through without proper signatures and singing on the behalf of other State officials. The Board of Accounts found this spending and activities; thus showing that activities were not in line with State Code and proper professional and managerial conduct. An Audit is an official primary source and not a secondary source such as a newspaper. Carlson of the Times Newspaper attended the legal proceedings of the Jojuana Lynn Meeks' trail. Karen Freeman-Wilson was deposed to testify at the trial until Meeks admitted all wrong doing. Finally, to construe that a name implies anything is partial and biased. If history cannot be properly show as to the deeds and activities of Karen Freeman-Wilson through Audits, Reports, and Articles, no matter how old, then the right to freely publish and produce past infractions against the taxpayers of Gary is simply not a desire of the editors of this web site. To remove documented facts and quotes impedes the accurate accounting of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.163.42 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And the above post, If history cannot be properly show as to the deeds and activities of Karen Freeman-Wilson through Audits, Reports, and Articles, no matter how old, then the right to freely publish and produce past infractions against the taxpayers of Gary implies an agenda as much as does the username (Concernedaboutgary has to now been a WP:SPA, whose only edits have been to this article [3], so let's take care in making claims of bias). Wikipedia does not exist as a vehicle for advocacy. It's reasonable to question the neutrality of the recent edits, and I've sought further comment at the BLP noticeboard. To be clear: it's not my intent, nor would it be that of Wikipedia, to suppress relevant biographical information. It's reasonable to make sure that any negative content derives from multiple reliable sources, is not given undue weight, and is not the product of advocacy. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have contributed thus far to the discussion. I felt initially that a timeline of one month would allow the editor time to review the claim of POV, and to make the necessary edits or improve sourcing. However, in line with WP guidelines, it is clear that any material that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately. My own personal timidity in removing others content comes from inexperience as an editor. I'm pleased to see the questionable material has been removed until appropriate sources can be properly verified and included in the article. I think the above editor phrases it well: it's not my intent, nor would it be that of Wikipedia, to suppress relevant biographical information. Wikipedia demands that we give a full and frank account of Freeman-Wilson's career. But let's cite good, unbiased sources. The use of POV or supposition together with murky sources is as unfair to Wikipedia readers as it is to Freeman-Wilson herself. Bennycat (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)