Talk:Radley Balko/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disambiguating "Drug"

Perhaps the drug link should go to Drug policy reform.

Good suggestion; certainly makes more sense than approved drugs. I'll do that. --Craig Stuntz 19:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, the problem is that that article focuses on illegal drugs, and Balko's writing tends to discuss the blurring of the government's policy on legal and illegal drugs both. (E.g., putting doctors in jail for prescribing legal painkillers, medical use of presently illegal drugs, etc.) I'm going to change the link to War on Drugs since that article better describes the policies Balko typically writes about. --Craig Stuntz 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Frat

I don't see anything encyclopedic about the frat Radley was in in college, the information doesn't cite a reliable source, and he has requested on his blog that the information not be included in this entry. Binarybits (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No source is required unless someone is actually challenging its veracity; any information about the individual is inherently relevant and appropriate, and his wishes in the matter are irrelevant. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So if I had information about what he had for breakfast this morning that would be "inherently relevant and appropriate?" I'd like to see the Wikipedia policy page on that. Binarybits (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BLP: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." The information is both unsourced and off-topic. Binarybits (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So-called "policy" is merely a description of what has happened in the past, and is totally irrelevant and non-binding on what we do in any present situation. You're relatively new, so you can be forgiven for not understanding this, but please learn. All that matters is what's best for the encyclopedia, and you have yet to present an argument against including this information that indicates that including it would not be best for the encyclopedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Certainly we can ignore policy if we think there's a good reason, but it's not "totally irrelevant." I'm not that new. The reasons the information shouldn't be included are (1) It's unsourced, and therefore impossible to verify, (2) it's not an important aspect of the subject and is unlikely to be of interest to most Wikipedia readers, and (3) it's in a biography of a living person, and so we should err on the side of excluding questionable information. Binarybits (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is irrelevant--sources need not be provided up front but only if someone challenges a statement in the article. Your second point is also irrelevant, because all that matters is that somebody might be interested in it. Your third point is also irrelevant, since unless the fraternity was involved in some major scandal, there's no way mentioning it could have a negative impact on the individual in question--and even if it could, as long as it was true so what? We should be in the business of being truthful, not of protecting individuals' reputations or delicate sensibilities. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, point #2 is ridiculous. Somebody might be interested in what Radley had for breakfast, but we wouldn't include that information even if we knew it. Writing an encyclopedia, like writing anything else, involves a certain amount of selectivity. As for point #1, I'm more than willing to challenge its validity. As for #3, we are, in fact, supposed to protect living persons' reputations. That's the whole point of WP:BLPBinarybits (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That someone might be interested in what Balko had for breakfast is precisely why such information should be included--because someone might be interested. Your assertion that "writing an encyclopedia...involves...selectivity" is blatantly false. And BLP is wrong, precisely because it puts protecting someone's reputation ahead of making correct, objective, neutral statements. We are obligated to ignore it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Words fail me. Binarybits (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems from the edit history that the edit wars have gone on too long. I am going to raise an RFC (below) to get wider consensus, which I hope we will all then respect. — Alan^✉ 16:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Radley writes about "Binge Drinking," "Drug laws," "The Minimum drinking age," etc, etc, etc. The fact he was in a Fraternity (where someone died in 2001 from alcohol posioning) while at Indiana is COMPLETELY relevant. Why do you think he does not what in in the entry!!!! (MIB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.221.130 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's OR. If you can point to a reliable source that makes that argument, then it should go in the article. If it's just your own theory, then we can't put it in.—Chowbok ☠ 20:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is fraternity information appropriate?

User Kurt Go Colts is acting like an Internet troll, whether that's his intention or not. As for the topic: "appropriate" is a troublesome word, it could confuse the issue. Naming someone's frat or sorority is not inappropriate, socially, in itself. But I think it's irrelevant, trivial. Of what use is it? Is it that you could research that frat to see "what kind of people it attracts"? I've seen that people like to put frat memberships in the BLPs of politicians. I would advise, on grounds of relevance, reporting which clubs people belong to unless it has a large relevance to their career or some news event involving them. You might say it's inappropriate to put irrelevant material in a BLP. E.g., that X belongs to the National Rifle Assn or the stamp collector's club. Hurmata (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)