Talk:Lori Douglas

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

OK, even administrators on the discussion page think that this information is germane. It applies to matter that has become a national story in Canada, it has been reported extensively and fully by Canada's most reputable (and a world leader) national journalist, it is a serious matter regarding how the Canadian judiciary is seen, and face it, it is an amazing and highly improbably story that will soon (in my estimation) become a global story because of the unusually "truth is stranger than fiction" quality. Why edit an iota of it? What is wrong with the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.88.3 (talk)

That's not "administrators" (plural), that's just me, an experienced editor. There are several reasons why your edits are not OK: (1) The passage last added was a copyright violation. (And the same is true for much of this article, something that needs to be fixed pronto.) (2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. You will not find such details as the precise nature of the photos in Encyclopaedia Britannica, and that's not just because it's more old-fashioned, but also because this level of detail is not encyclopedic information. (3) Wikipedia is particularly sensitive about biographies of living people, see WP:BLP. Hans Adler 16:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for information's sake, I'm linking the CBC's article about why they decided to run this story. I have no particular opinion one way or the other at this point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting piece. Thanks, –xeno^talk 19:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Only two facts are essential for this biography of a judge: 1) that a complaint was filed with a judicial oversight body and 2) that the judge requested to be relieved of her duties and was granted the same while the complaint is being heard. Those looking for news can click through to the CBC. –xeno^talk 23:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Five Ws are the basic information that are essential to any element of an article, not just the two facts that xeno is allowing to stay. So long as the information is verifiable and from a reliable source, the section concerning the "sex scandal" incident should cover the following: a) Who filed the complaint and who is the complaint about? b) What is the complaint about and what is the process that follows such a complaint?, c) When was the complaint filed and for what time period does the complaint involve?, d) Where did this all occur?, and e) Why did the judge step down?. So no, there are more than just 'two facts" that should be included in this biography. Larkspurs (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

When did those 5Ws become policy for encyclopedias? You obviously have a different medium in mind, and WP is not a newspaper. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is about a judge. What you are describing would assign an enormous amount of weight to this breaking news incident which already takes up 25% of the article. Sounds like you want to write an article about the complaint... –xeno^talk 19:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I want to write one single and well-referenced paragraph about the complaint, but I am not able to because you are censoring what can be included in this article. Larkspurs (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Censorship would be deleting the article, or removing mention of the incident entirely. The reader has been given links to organizations whose role is to provide news. Ours is not. –xeno^talk 19:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If this was an American judge...

I guarantee nobody would dispute keeping this article. Further proof of an inherent American bias in Wikipedia. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Family court judges are not automatically notable in the US. BTW, the wording should be "If this were" as subjunctive IIRC. Collect (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Researching there are over 4,000 Federal judges in courts of primary jurisdiction, and more than 9,000 state judges in that status. In addition, there are state and local family courts, local criminal and civil courts, magistrates and justices of the peace in ginormous profusion. At a guess, likely over 50,000 "judges" in the US as a minimum. Collect (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am no suggesting adding an article for EVERY judge. Just the more notable ones, like Douglas. NorthernThunder (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And what specific notability is asserted? Noting BLP1E is not a sufficient standard. Collect (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Douglas is Associate Chief Justice and one of 39 members of the Canadian Judicial Council. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lori Douglas is notable as a Justice of the Queen's Bench of Manitoba. This means that she is a federally appointed Judge to the 2nd highest level of court in Canada, below only the Supreme Court of Canada. Further, she is the Associate Chief Justice - meaning that she is the highest ranking Judge in the Province of Manitoba behind only the Chief Justice Marc Monnin reference. Forget about the current scandal. Douglas is notable for her position as a senior ranked Judge in Canada. Larkspurs (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. No Manitoba court can be the "2nd highest level court in Canda". However, it is the 2nd highest level court in Manitoba – and also the lowest for things such as divorces. Hans Adler 12:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected

I've fully protected the article for one month. This is an emerging event and Wikipedia is not a news site. The only facts that are needed here are that a complaint was filed and that the judge temporarily stepped down. Everything else can be given appropriate treatment at a later date. As I have edited the article, I reported the protection to ANI and BLPN for review. –xeno^talk 18:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. We don't know whether accusations are factual or not, and it would be best to let rapidly moving news events coalesce to a more stable condition before expanding the article. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Who appointed xeno to decide what are the "only facts that are needed here"? Inserting verifiable information from reliable sources are not "clear BLP violations" that an admin has authority to delete. So long as the information is verifiable and from a reliable source then it should stay; albeit in a concise form so as to not violate WP:UNDUE. I am requesting xeno to please back off. What you are doing is censorship, and that is in violation of everything that Wikipedia stands for. The article can be, and will be, cleaned-up after the 24-hour news cycle has passed. Larkspurs (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and we need to get it right the first time and not "clean-up after". As I noted at ANI, if another administrator feels I have erred in judgment, they have permission to modify my action. –xeno^talk 19:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So long as the information is verifiable and from reliable sources we have gotten it right. Larkspurs (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This incident already takes up 25% of this article. See WP:UNDUE, relevant portion quoted below. –xeno^talk 19:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

You have said several times that you are willing to have your judgement questioned. So then why are you so defensive? Please let others get involved in these discussions. Your very defensive posture is impeding the discussion. Larkspurs (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will stop responding to you then, and allow others to provide clarification as to relevant policies and guidelines. –xeno^talk 19:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)