Talk:Charles Rackoff

message: I added a sentence on Rackoff's comments on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. I think reasonable people can disagree on the matter, but I believe it's worthy of being mentioned in his biographical stub. It is sourced with a CBC article. 
~ben  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.253.229 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion it's undue weight. If he doesn't have some sort of ongoing campaign over this issue, it's just a single event that happened ten years ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Disagree, think it gives insight into the individual and is worthy of inclusion in the bio. (Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I also support the removal for the reasons as per Ray and Demiurge. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am new to Wikipedia (only editing actively for a couple months) but wanted to state the reasons for my disagreement. While I would agree with the deletion if it was a third party's opinion that the subject is a bigot, no matter how well sourced, what I see here is the subject's own use of the status which makes him notable, his academic position, as a platform to express his views on a public issue. If I were a reporter or writer searching Rackoff here as preliminary research for an article about or mentioning him, I would find the deleted material significant, and I think its deletion violates NPOV by essentially white washing the subject. I think Wikipedia biographies should reflect the whole person based on their own writings and utterances, not their carefully groomed "best" version of their persona.  Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes , are there anymore reports about this,  other citations? has it continued to be discussed, or was it a simple titillating story at the time? All these things need to be considered, he apparently was not reprimanded or it had no affect of his career at all, he had been a professor for so long, that is what we are here to report not that he sent a silly email and doesn't like feminists as a half of his life story, its a matter of weight. From my searches it would appear that this wikipedia is now the main propagator of this detail and we should take care not to be the main vessel for content that may reflect unduly poorly or be detrimental to a living person as imo this content presented as it was does. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Well, firstly, the article really doesn't "reflect the whole person" yet, because it's way too short to do so. That's why the material was undue weight. If the article was several pages long and went into considerable detail about his various work, a neutral overview of any relevant aspects of his personal life, et cetera, then yes it might be justifiable to mention the email incident (usually somewhere near the end). Second, yes it's true that many reporters or writers would prefer the controversial material over the material for which the person is actually notable, but that doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should have to focus on controversial material unduly. And third, I think you slightly exaggerate "an e-mail sent to departmental colleagues" in saying it's using his status as a platform on a public issue. If he'd included these views in a public lecture or emailed them to a newspaper using his academic credentials then yes you could view it that way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women comments 

message: I propose to add a sentence at the end of the bio as follows:
Dr. Rackoff's comments http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/12/07/massacre_email001207.html  on the 2000 memorial for the victims of the Montreal Massacre were reported in Canadian media. 
Alternately, we could add a "for" reference, eg, "For Dr. Rackoff's comments, etc.
I believe either would satisfy all applicable standards, and all objections appropriately raised by anyone, under BLP, RS, and WEIGHT, and is in fact required by NPOV.  I will wait a decent interval for comments and disagreement. I am also happy to reactivate this on the BLP:Noticeboard,  and will do so before actually making the edit. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ray. I will certainly put the ref at the end. I will wait at least a few days to see if anyone else responds, before making the edit.  Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, we need at least some mention. I'd include that he criticised the "feminist/extreme left-wing agenda" of the memorial, to give some context as to what his view was and why it was controversial, otherwise the inclusion will be too opaque. Fences&Windows 23:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fences--I personally agree but am proposing a compromise which is deliberately a bit opaque because this topic has been near beaten to death here and on the BLP noticeboard and resulted in deletion of all mention of Dr. Rackoff's comments. I am trying to strike a balance between majority opinion on the board and what I personally believe NPOV requires. I think an otherwise opaque reference is an acceptable compromise. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to Re-Insert Content

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charles Rackoff. 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/20100716200535/http://www.sigact.org:80/prizes/godel/ to http://www.sigact.org/Prizes/godel/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified