Talk:Marion Blakey

Untitled

BLP's must comply with three core principles and one of which is all content must be of a neutral point of view. "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. The Schumer reference is highly politicized and does not represent a neutral point of view which, per Wikipedia guidelines must be removed immediately. Additionally, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous".

AKwikiusermanAKwikiuserman (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, content must be written from a WP:Neutral point of view, but that doesn't mean articles can't contain neutral reports of criticisms made in public, when supported by WP:Reliable sources. So Senator Schumer's criticism may or may not have been politically motivated, but we can still report that he made it, and it's highly relevant to the article. If you think something in the article is libellous, please point it out here before removing it. I notice that you started editing just after Special:Contributions/AIAcomm was blocked. Are you the same editor? If so, I strongly recommend that you read WP:Conflict of interest: you still need to abide by those guidelines, even with a change of username. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No Captain, the Schumer attack is not relevant as there were no official allegations brought fourth and this was political conjecture to a problem you yourself have stated in recent editorial comments that flight delays were contributed to a number of factors. You also fail to cite the core purpose for Schumer's attack which was based on a labor relations lawsuit between FAA and air traffic controllers. Very convenient when you say you imply you are writing as a neutral editor. You have also removed relevant information from earlier edits made to this sentence "During Blakey's tenure as Administrator, the National Airspace System absorbed major air traffic growth increasing flight delays.[6]" by removing the articles reference to air traffic controllers and an antiquated ATS as specifically noted in the original article you cite. You have also removed information about the current group Blakey works for which his relevant information as that information is taken from a legal document on the organizations website which you say doesn't specifically mentions Blakey, but if it is the organization she works for then it is intrinsically relevant and accurate information. Citation 15 also does not mention Blakey anywhere in the sourced reference material and should also be removed if we are following your logic. I'd also ask Captain, are you a former air traffic controller or disgruntled airline employee as your name would suggest, in which case I strongly recommend that you read WP:Conflict of interest: because you still need to abide by those guidelines just the same even if you are a former disgruntled employee. AKwikiusermanAKwikiuserman (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "official allegations", but regardless of Schumer's intent, his criticism was widely reported in reliable sources, and noting it in the article is not conjecture. I've only included one reliable source for Schumer's criticism in the article, but can cite many more if you like. If you can find reliable sources showing what Schumer's "core purpose" was which are relevant to this article rather than Charles Schumer, please add them. Please also feel free to re-add the part about rapid growth being a factor in the increased delays, but I removed your assertion that the problem was all down to antiquated ATC equipment, because, as you now seem to agree, the sources clearly state that equipment was only one of many problems. I removed the copyrighted blurb about the AIA that you added: you're of course welcome to add a short description of her new employer, written in your own words. I am not a former employee of any organization to do with Blakey. I would like to hear your answer to my question above, though: are you Special:Contributions/AIAcomm, editing under a new name? Your edits are very similar. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not need to find another source to confirm that Schumer is talking about his remarks in the context of the FAA/ATC lawsuit because he is quoted as saying that is article - '"She has engaged in a counterproductive fight with the air traffic controllers, cut the number of controllers that are needed, and they sometimes lash back," said the senator.' So by not noting this part in your edits you are not being neutral you are shifting blame solely to Blakey when there was a larger labor dispute involved which you fail to address in any of your comments.

The article is about Blakey, not the dispute. Blakey's role in the dispute should be what's primarily discussed here. There are abundant references in the section that you've repeatedly tried to remove that mention the labour dispute, and several factors, but it's entirely appropriate in an article about Blakey to include well-sourced criticism, especially from other public figures, of Blakey's role in the FAA's problems during her time as its leader.

Per my earlier assertion you continuously remove any snippet of a reference to controllers.

Please provide WP:Diffs of the edit(s) where I have "continuously remove(d) any snippet of a reference to controllers". I can't find a single example.

As said in your first response we should be including things which are highly relevant and this is one of those topics that just happen to be highly relevant and in the public domain.

And I have never said that controllers shouldn't be included. There's plenty about the controllers' role in the dispute in there, and I haven't removed any of it.

Also, it was the main assertion of the original article you included for citation 6 that it was the antiquated ATC system that caused delays.

Other references, including statements by Blakey herself, asserted that there were many causes. And in this edit, you remove this statement by Blakey, with an edit summary that for some reason says "removed conjectural accusation from non-neutral political figure POV"

Other articles you cite have references to weather delays and over scheduling but not 6 which is why I disagree with you and again assert that my changes are relevant and need to be added to this cited sentence.

So what content are you saying should be added, that's not in there now?

Id also point out that my original edits do not cite only antiquated ATC equipment but also included the part about increased air traffic to the system, so I'm glad you brought that up to point out to both of us that you are wrong.

Wrong about what? Which original edits?

Per the blurb about AIA, I'm not sure how you would have me wright is as those were my own words, so if you can find where the exact phase that you are accusing me of plagiarizing is (and do include a url) then please feel free to do so but until that time you have no standing to remove my edits.

One example of plagiarised WP:Peacock language is this edit, which is a copyrighted blurb pasted straight from her Bloomberg bio at [1].

You also fail to address another reference to controllers, from my last comment " Citation 15 also does not mention Blakey anywhere in the sourced reference material and should also be removed if we are following your logic."

Citation 15 doesn't mention Blakey by name, but it does talk about the FAA's role in the dispute during Blakey's term as FAA Administrator. I have added a reference to the intro from the AIA site which actually profiles Blakey.

Lastly, to your question about my username, why is it of such great concern to you who I am. Anyone can monitor a Wikipedia page and oft times more that one users monitor the same page. AKwikiusermanAKwikiuserman (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're an employee of AIA, then you should declare the conflict of interest, and should be taking great care when editing a page about your employer. Are you editor Special:Contributions/AIAcomm, editing under a new name? Captain Conundrum (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You've made no reply, and made no further attempt at gaining WP:Consensus here, but simply made this latest wholesale removal of both the previous material you objected to, and also an entire paragraph about the controllers, after you accused me above of removing material about controllers. Please stop: you're going to get blocked for WP:Edit warring. Make your case here, and wait for consensus. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

NO reply was made because you refuse to allow for anything other than your exact phraseology and content permissions to be included. As many edits have been made to initial attempts to try and appease all of your suggestions, I do not believe you have made a good faith effort. I have tried to rephrase things factually and accurately to reflect sourced materials but you continue to deny any changes that are made which are not from your account. Therefore, I do not believe that you are willing to work with me on this matte rand if you attempt to block me I will appeal because I have been fully willing to work with you. I will be reverting to my previous version so if you have suggested edits please share them with me before you revert to a previous version and threaten to block me. AKwikiuserman (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your second attempt at a revert has been undone by another editor. Let's try to resolve this, one step at a time.

First let's start with an easy one: capitalization of the word "Administrator". The person in charge of the FAA is more than just an admin, so as far as I can tell, the word is capitalized when used to refer to the appointed head of the FAA. All the other Wikipedia articles about her predecessors and successors capitalize it, and it's capitalized at the FAA's page about key officials. Agreed? Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If I may, can we address citation 5? Currently, it reads: "During Blakey's tenure as Administrator, the National Airspace System absorbed major air traffic growth increasing flight delays." The following is a direct quote from the article, it states: "The system is stressed on many fronts including the FAA's antiquated air traffic control system. The proposed improvements, which will allow air traffic control to track jets, will not be in place for at least five years," as the article also talks more broadly about the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) and its early implementation stages saying "Federal Aviation Administration is expected to announce a contract for a high-tech satellite system," a reference to NextGen replacing the stressed ATC system should be included to be fair to the sourced material. Keeping in mind your earlier comments, I would propose to change this sentence to: "During Blakey's tenure as Administrator, the National Airspace System absorbed major air traffic growth which contributed to flight delays during early implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), which is slated to replace the aging Air traffic control (ATC) system." Thank you for your willingness to work on these matters. AKwikiuserman (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I've made the change. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. How about citation 7? Currently, it reads "In addition, Blakey attributed the increase to bad weather, additional regional jet traffic, fewer air traffic controllers and failures or delays attributed to the antiquated air traffic system which she worked to replace." Just to tie in the main ideas in the paragraph and to make the structure flow more evenly I would suggest it read "Blakey also attributed delays to bad weather, increased regional jet traffic, fewer air traffic controllers in the system and failures or delays attributed to the antiquated air traffic system which she worked to replace with NextGen." Thoughts? AKwikiuserman (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the references about what she actually did to get NextGen moving, apart from call for it publicly. Are there any reliable sources online describing what she did? Or in the meantime, a form of words that better reflects what the current sources say? Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you accept the following as reference? [2] It states there was joint planning between FAA and other cabinet level administrative heads. AKwikiuserman (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good one, thanks. Edit made as you suggest. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. May we also use this link [3] to source the following sentence "The five-year labor contract in dispute was imposed on Labor Day in 2006 after Congress failed to intervene." I also think we should work together on reworking and interweaving this sentence with the previous sentence in the bio because neither are currently sourced and they could fit together. AKwikiuserman (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please go ahead - everything you're proposing so far is neutral and well-sourced. Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marion Blakey. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013032453/http://www.fcw.com/print/13_35/policy/150295-1.html?topic=funding to http://www.fcw.com/print/13_35/policy/150295-1.html?topic=funding

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) 00:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marion Blakey. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217031424/http://www.jpdo.gov/newsArticle.asp?id=60 to http://www.jpdo.gov/newsArticle.asp?id=60

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) 10:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marion Blakey. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908134815/http://www.faa.gov/about/bios/bios_blakey.htm to http://www.faa.gov/about/bios/bios_blakey.htm

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) 20:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)