Talk:Matt O'Connor (activist)

message: Page name:  Matt O'Connor
My addition to the page Matt O'Connor was removed, on the grounds that it added copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. 
I have permission from the copyright holder to release the text and images included under the draft article under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA) license allowed by Wikipedia.
Matt O'Connor has emailed his permissions for reuse under the CC-BY-SA to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating his ownership of the material and intention to publish it under 
a free license.  We haven’t as yet heard anything.
Matt O’Connor has added a note at the site of the original publication http://www.linkedin.com/in/mattgoconnor stating that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain.  
I have added a new draft version of the article at | this temporary page.
Is there a way to expedite the resolution of these issues and get the new page up? At the moment there is no information currently listed at Matt O'Connor.
Thank you
Mcguirl1 (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For any OTRS team members the ticket number regarding this permission is 2013011710003591. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have personal permission from the author / copyright holder to release the text on the draft Matt O'Connor page under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA).  This article has some material replicated from Matt O'Connor's LinkedIn profile. Mcguirl1 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For any OTRS team members the ticket number regarding this permission is 2013011710003591. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Permissions

message: *Dated information archived to page history may be viewed here --Versageek 05:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article states 
"Deborah Ross, after interviewing him for The Independent described O'Connor as 'aggressive'."
However the actual article reads, "There is quite a lot of aggressive male stuff going on here". The only valid context is that the article is not calling Matt O'Connor aggressive in himself, more the idea's being talked about. Even if you doubt that, it's far from calling him aggressive in himself.
Akin to how someone would call radical feminism aggressive, even if the the individual is not. 
As such I think the quote from the article is very misleading. Also reference 3 has no baring on the previous points.
Also in interests to neutrality, reference 2 seems very biased. Although it is a mainstream new article, in itself the author seems to have a very skewed perception of the movement. In itself simply putting "Deborah Ross, after interviewing him for The Independent described O'Connor as 'aggressive'." while giving no context to the conversation seems very misleading.
A better way to word it would be "Deborah Ross, after interviewing him for The Independent described O'Connor views concerning father's rights 'aggressive'". This would be a good compromise but I still feel the Deborah Ross reference is misleading in it's use.
The Deborah Ross source in itself is not very reliable as all sources need to be as neutral as possible. Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs 
"Under Sources that are not usually reliable" section and the "Questionable Source" sub section it includes articles that "lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.122.95 (talk • contribs) 
:The interview with O'Connor is by an award-winning journalist, published in an award-winning, high-circulation national broadsheet newspaper. What would you consider to be a more reliable source? I've improved the context by quoting the sentence more fully, but there's really no reason to keep deleting the reference citing one of the few interviews he's given to a mainstream newspaper. It might be critical of him in places, but it's not a hatchet piece, and she compliments him a few times in the course of the article. Ruby Murray 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deborah Ross Comment