Talk:Harry L. Williams

NPOV

This read like it was written by Williams' press agent. Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Orange Mike. I've been away on other projects, and just now saw your comment. Are there any particular points, "trigger phrases", etc. that spurred your comment here? In the interest of full disclosure, and as I've already fully disclosed to Wikipedia, I'm a paid subcontractor who does various projects for the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, of which Harry L. Williams is president and CEO. I've previously advised them on any pushback I've received thus far. Obviously, I'm trying to please them, but most assuredly want to stay within your documented guidelines to avoid any disputed content. Your help is very much appreciated, to say the least!     Sigridtx (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Source no longer available

@Sigridtx: Please don't remove citations from articles (like you did here here) simply because a source is "no longer available". Doing so isn't really in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:DEADREF. A cited source doesn't automatically lose its value simply because it's no longer available online because of the following: (1) sources cited in articles aren't required to be available online per WP:PUBLISH; and (2) the source could've been archived, and an archived version of it is available online. If you're unwilling or unable for whatever reason to find an archived version of the source yourself, you can add the template Template:Dead link to the source instead of removing it; just follow the instructions on the template's page. This template will add the article to a maintenance category with other articles which have "dead" references, and there are WP:BOTs and other users who work through this category trying to "revive" these sources. I know you're trying to help while navigating your COI/PAID connection, and that you did also add a replacement source; it's still probably best, though, to leave the source that was originally added as is but tagged accordingly instead.

@Theroadislong: Since you added the {{Failed verification}} for the particular bit of article content, perhaps you could take another look at it when you have the time given the archived version of the original I found and the new citation added by Sigridtx. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance @Marchjuly. To your note regarding "eventually converting the latter to the former or move them to External links", I take it you're referring to the citation I added today, correct? Also, you'll see that this article is disputed, so I'm in the process of working to make this more neutral, which includes ensuring any accomplishments (neutrally presented) are supported by disinterested, reliable sources. I'll make sure I don't change any existing links. But related to my question earlier here, I can add a new citation to content not already cited, correct? I appreciate your help! Sigridtx (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sigridtx: If you're referring to this edit summary I left regarding WP:GENREF, then that was about the source being cited in Harry L. Williams#General. The "citation" appears to have been added here as part of an edit made by an IP account in March 2024. I don't know whether that was you, some random person, or someone else editing the article on behalf of Williams (it's actually not so important as to who did it per se), but it wasn't added as an WP:INCITE. Whoever added it just embedded it into the "References" section without indicatiing which article content it's intended to support. This could've been done by someone not understanding how to properly add a citation to a Wikipedia article, someone who didn't understand the difference between a citation and an external link, or someone who intended it to be a "general reference". Ideally, general references should either be converted to a inline citation, external link or even perhaps a WP:FURTHERREADING type of entry as an article is expanded or at some other point once they've been assessed depending on whether the source cited is considered reliable and actually can be used to cite specific article content. I think the site the IP linked to probably falls under WP:ELYES, but others might consider it a WP:RS that can be used to cite some specific article content; for that reason, I compromised and treated it as a "general reference".

As for your other question, as long as you follow the guidance in WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement, you sould be OK: you should understand, though, that even properly declared COI and PAID editing is viewed quite suspiciously by many others. So, you might want be overly cautious and re-declare your PAID status in your edit summaries or even (perhaps better?) simply just make an WP:EDITREQUEST whenever you want to make an edit (even just to add a citation) since doing so might save you some grief. I don't, however, suggest that you yourself remove the {{Npov}} template added to the top of the article since that's almost certainly going to receive some blowback even if you'd be right in doing so (not making a judgement either way here). That is definitely something you should either propose here on the article's talk page, or seek assistance with at WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN. That template was added by a Wikipedian named Orangemike; so, you could propose removing the template and WP:PING Orangemike to the discussion if you want to ask them for a reassessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply here. To give you some further context, as I've mentioned, I do a variety of marketing communications contract work for the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (TMCF) of which Williams is president and CEO – a key service being copywriting. My main contact is TMCF's chief marketing officer, who turned to me in March to update Williams' page. While I'm a seasoned pro on the marketing and advertising side, having worked with some of the largest brands in the world, this is my first foray into Wikipedia, and I most definitely "jumped the gun" in approaching this. No, it's not marketing at all, and I get that loud and clear!

Your guidance here is most helpful, particularly regarding WP:EDITREQUEST. As I believe I also mentioned, I'm in the process of trying to include more information regarding work that Williams has done tied to independent, reliable sources. So, there could be a fair amount of added content I'll be requesting. My objective is to get this to where my "client" is happy, Wikipedia's happy, and all is right with the world. Once that happens, I'll address removing the {{Npov}} template the way you suggested. Does that sound like I'm barking up the right tree? Thanks again! Sigridtx (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't concerned at all with whether your client ends up being happy with your efforts. If you're able to achieve that in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then that's great; however, it's not going to be a priority of Wikipedia to satisfy your client. Whatever agreement they entered into with you is between the two of you and doesn't impose any obligations on Wikipedia in any way, shape or form. So, you should try to explain your client that even though there's Wikipedia article written about them, it's not written for them. As long as the article's content (positive or negative content) is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, Wikipedia will be "happy". In a sense, you're caught (unfarily perhaps) between a rock and a hard place in that you've got to figure out how to please both your client and Wikipedia; however, you're going to find yourself starting have some serious problems if you start giving others (i.e. Wikipedia) the impression that you're more WP:NOTHERE than WP:HERE. That's something you're going to have to figure out how to explain to your client so that they don't start expecting you to do things that you aren't able to do. FWIW, I'm not posting this kind of stuff to disuade you and your client from trying to improve the article; I'm only hoping to get you to modify your expectations a bit regarding what you might be able to accomplish. You might want to take a look at WP:BOSS and ask your client to take a look at WP:PROUD; those two essays are often cited by Wikipedians when trying to explain the things I posted about above.

As for making edit requests, as long as your edit requests are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, they should be given a fair assessment. Your best bet might be to keep things small and easy to understand; for example, change X to Y for this reason. Trying to have the whole article rewritten in one fell swoop never works and usually ends up with an edit request being declined (sometimes rather quickly). It's important to remember that those answering edit requests are WP:VOLUNTEERs just like every Wikipedian; they work at their own pace and work on things that interest them. Edit requests aren't assigned to any particular Wikipedian per se and multi-layered requests can be difficult to quickly assess and understand; so, they may be passed over or just outright declined. So, if you request a change, you should present it in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (the change is needed to satisfy this policy or this guideline), and provide a way (e.g a link to a reliable source) for the change to be verified. In short, you're going to be expected to do all of the heavy lifting and make sure all of the i's are dotted and t's are crossed when it comes to an edit request. The easier a request is to answer, the greater the chance it has of being approved. Expecting others to start Googling things in search of reliable sources to to verify a proposed change, rewriting a wall of promotional content in a NPOV way or doing other similar cleanup would be barking up the wrong tree so to speak. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)