Talk:Gary Haney

Recent edits

@Vincent Wedge: I don't have an issue with most of your recent edits, but two of them do stand out to me as objectionable:

(cur | prev) 03:47, 20 March 2018‎ Vincent Wedge (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,161 bytes) (-2,696)‎ . . (Removed awards and honors section. These are not verifiable.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit: Switched)
(cur | prev) 02:53, 20 March 2018‎ Vincent Wedge (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,544 bytes) (-254)‎ . . (Removed reference to primary source (company website) to address primary source issue and Time magazine award to address possible promotional content.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

On the first, why do you say the awards and honors are not verifiable? Most of them look pretty verifiable to me. If you think there's some serious doubt, tag them as dubious or disputed or verify credibility and let others go do the work.

On the second, I don't have an opinion on the text of what was removed, but I think it's a mistake to not have his webpage at the SOM listed in the References section. That's the most up-to-date source of information (I realize it is in the Infobox.). The solution to a problem of many primary sources is not to remove primary sources. It is to add more secondary sources. And furthermore, this concern is relaxed with biography pages for people who are not celebrities. Sources of information are limited, so the choice may be between primary sources and nothing. (Also, personally, I think the Wikipedia concern about primary sources is somewhat overdone; we should not sacrifice accuracy for some kind of metacritical presumption of superiority. It's not like secondary sources are somehow more reliably than primary sources. Indeed, they're wrong more often.) jhawkinson (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jhawkinson:! Thank you so much for your feedback. I agree re: primary sources. Was hoping to address @Duffbeerforme: 's concerns in the tags at the top of the article. I just wrote to him on his talk page. Do you think I should restore awards and honors and just add revisions? Most other notable architect pages seem to have this section. So I'm not sure if that was the concern or not. It seems appropriate given that the guy is a significant figure in contemporary architecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Wedge‎ (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vincent Wedge: thanks for the quick response. Please do remember to sign your talk posts with ~~~~, but I did it for you (also, normally new entries on talk pages go at the end, not the beginning). Yes, I think you should restore those sections (or I can; I didn't want to do it without discussion with you). Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jhawkinson: Hmm. I'm not sure why that response appeared at the beginning rather than the end. (Or why it wasn't signed for that matter. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. May have accidentally saved before I was done.) Went ahead and restored the Awards and honors section. I will also add the SOM references back as soon as @Duffbeerforme: responds. Do you think the page reads as promotional? Haney is cited in my forthcoming doctoral dissertation, but I didn't think that qualified my editing of the article as being a conflict of interest. Do you have any experience with whether or not that is a concern as related to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies? It is pretty standard practice in academia to write an article about a subject you have cited in other published, or forthcoming work. This is a strange policy if that is the objection here. I have no interest in declaiming the subject or promoting, only creating reference material for peers. Vincent Wedge (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Vincent Wedge

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional. It's not advertising, it describes an architect's work and his notability. Also, using speedy deletion on a 2-year-old article seems like very much the wrong process. This is a quick response given the expedited (speedy) nature of the process, I will try to be explain more clearly when I have more time. jhawkinson (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

With a bit more time, @Duffbeerforme:, I'm stunned that you would initiate a speedy deletion for this article. In addition to having recent discussions on the Talk page questioning the merits of some of the tags you added, the editor who primarily authored this discussion began a conversation with you on your talk page. To respond to that, not by commenting on the article's talk page or by improving the article but instead suggesting the article should be removed without the AfD process is…pretty worrisome to me. This is not a good way to engage.

You suggested that this article met the G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion for speedy deletion. You have not come close to making the required showing. There is a line between "notability" and "promotion." But as I read this article, anything that might be viewed as promotional passes the test for notability. It is certainly not "spam" or commercial. Architects of hundred-million-dollar government buildings are not selected on the basis of their Wikipedia pages, and there's no plausible inference to be drawn that a Wikipedia article would have any commercial effect, much less an unwarranted or inappropriate one. The article summarizes Haney's work, awards, and affiliations, just like any other biographical article about an architect. Of course the article appropriately links to primary sources associated with the architect and his firm, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. But the article is not "primarily" such things, nor does it have sales-oriented language. The external links in the article are of an appropriate level, but they are not sales or spam -related, even when viewed on their own aside from the rest.

Do you dispute the claim of notability for the subject?

I also do not think your tags raising primary sourcing and COI issues are merited. The allegation that an article uses too many primary sources is always a tricky one, and when the subject matter is something for which secondary sources are rare and primary sources are relatively definitive, as here, we should appropriately expect to see more primary sources. I am not troubled by the number in this article, and I think your tag regarding that is overzealous. (I am not removing it at this time, but I would like to hear better justification for it.)

With respect to COI, I'm even more confused. Please articulate the conflict of interest you are aware of with respect to the author of this article. As far as I can tell, the author studied the subject of the article and wrote an encyclopedic article on that basis. That's not a COI, and it's entirely appropriate. I will remove the COI tag in the next day barring some better justification for it. You further allege the sourcing is "dishonest" and the claims "peacocked." That's strong language and kind of ad hominem: what is dishonest? What claims do you think are flamboyent? The article does not, to me, read like paid PR.

(I'm honestly not sure why this article was in my watchlist. I had been curious about Mr. Haney's work some time ago and read the article, but had not actually made any changes to it. Still, I'm happy it was there so I noticed this nascent dispute between you and the primary author.)

Thank you for your attention. jhawkinson (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Read other articles by Wedge. Read others opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) (2nd nomination). Look at what the sources say versus what Wedge writes. Look at the image permissions. Wedge is not just an unconnected student. When looking at primary sources, look at the weight they are given, look for what pretend to be independent but are in part or totally written by SOM. If an org is giving an award to someone that orgs announcement is primary. See below and the afd to see Wedge's dishonest sourcing. Quick response, I may go into more detail later. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Duffbeerforme noticed you have still not addressed the issue of whether or not this subject meets the criteria for notability on wikipedia. Please support "totally written by SOM" claim. Further, of course the organization that gives the award's announcement is the primary source for the award! The NYT, Washington Post, and AIA are also legit sources. Further, attributions by the US Census Bureau to an AIA announcement about a SOM contract is as legitimate an independent source to a verify project (albeit indirectly to the designer) as you can get. You would disagree with this? This is trolling not editing. Vincent Wedge (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Vincent Wedge

That was a reply about the suitability of a speedy for promotion, notability was not an issue in this thread, you are building a strawman. "Please support "totally written by SOM" claim." Your strawman is getting bigger. Your selective quoting is telling. (for others following asking about "in part or totally", eg CTBUH articles). "the organization that gives the award's announcement is the primary source for the award!" Yes it is. But credible awards get reported by the media, If no one independent mentions the award what is the significance of the award? F all. "The NYT, Washington Post, and AIA are also legit sources." Yes they are. But what do they actually say about him. The first, NYT. They quote him as a mouthpiece of his employer, they say F all about him. "Further, attributions by the US Census Bureau to an AIA announcement about a SOM contract is as legitimate an independent source to a verify project ". huh? what? "This is trolling not editing." OK, I should not have responded to your trolling, my mistake. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Argument That Gary Haney Page is "promotional," "peacocked," and "dishonest"

Cut and pasted from @Duffbeerforme:'s talk page:

copied content from User_talk:Duffbeerforme:

Hello, duffbeerforme: Made revisions on Gary Haney to address

. Wanted to let you know I am the primary contributor to this article and am guessing I'm the person you're addressing in the COI? Do not know if this is conflict of interest, but I am a PhD candidate at the University of Utah and Haney's work is cited in my forthcoming doctoral dissertation (hence the extensive notes on him). Removed awards and honors section and uncited statements. Also removed a lot of promotional sounding adjectives. Haven't removed the tags as I wanted to hear your feedback first. Vincent Wedge (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Vincent Wedge

All of the articles you created are overly promotion. Your sourcing is dishonest. Sources do not back up your peacocked claims. All reads like paid PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme: If you could please cite specifics I'd be happy to respond and make appropriate edits. "Dishonest sourcing" and "peacocked" claims also seems a bit ad hominem, but I'm going to assume your goal, as is mine, is to make wikipedia better and get rid of promotional articles. Am 100% with you. Just please give specifics for your claims and I or the community will make the changes. The term "Supertall buildings" is an architectural designation. Is that what you are referring to? Also, please post your comments on the article talk page for the sake of transparency. Am copying and pasting them there so others can see your arguments. Cheers. Vincent Wedge (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Vincent Wedge

Let's look at the peacocked claim that he "has influenced academic approaches to the teaching of mega structure design as well as shaping the techniques used in supertall building construction." Sources that supposedly support this claim. 1."Press Room < About Us: Lafarge" A press release about him giving a lecture. Does not support your claim. 2.Northeastern University. The study itself. Does not support your claim.

Burj Khalifa completed 2008, tip height 829.8 m. Yet you claim about Al Hamra Tower, "Completed in 2011, the building consists of 77 floors and, at 412 meters (1,351 ft), the tower stands as the tallest building in the Middle East." Source used to support this falsehood, CTBUH. Supports completion date, Height is close, says three more floors, no mention of it being the tallest of anywhere.

"He is also known for civic and government building design work such as the Smithsonian redesign" Source mearly has a quote from him as a "design partner for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the architects for the redesign." Nothing about what you claim he is known for.

Going to AFD. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

These claims do not support COI, primary, advert flags. Nor was there any time given to address these concerns here on the talk page. Why to AFD? See the following

If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. Some neutrality-related templates, such as (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed

Safe to say "tagging editor failed to initiate a discussion." Your response was on AFD nomination. Not here. That is not a reasonable approach to wiki editing process and seems to imply that your goal here is to win an argument rather than make the page better. Vincent Wedge (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Vincent Wedge

Safe to say "tagging editor failed to initiate a discussion."? afd is a discussion. Simple as that. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Duffbeerforme, I have the feeling you also don't like being lectured. And I also wonder if the editor doesn't have a COI--they seem to have a habit of writing up such articles on the rich and famous. I am very tempted to restore the COI tag, esp. after their high-falutin' edit summary. Vincent Wedge, one more thing: please stop copying code and doing fancy formatting. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

post-AfD work

I think there were a number of issues raised in the AfD that are worth copying over to the talk page and addressing. (Not everything in the AfD, maybe, but there's validity there for sure). So this is just a reminder to go through the AfD and enumerate some of those concerns here, so that we can make sure to address them in the article. jhawkinson (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm going to attempt a thorough rewrite. In view of the questions raised on the AfD about accuracy of claims and of the repetition in the article, I think the best procedure is to cut it way down, group the references with what they are supposed to be about (including the ones that I moved to a new Further reading section and that were previously presented as if they were publications by him), and then examine them to see whether any are actually not useful. Since his influence in the design of tall buildings was particularly contested at the AfD, I may just leave that out; it can always be reinserted if one or more good sources refer to him in that way. I will note, though, that architects very much do get written about. There is no lack of sources on current architecture, much of it referring to a named architect's work on a particular building; although some of it is in online magazines/blogs that not everyone reads, both NYT and WaPo regularly have architecture articles in their arts sections, and those are not only about firms. OK, if everybody off-wiki will stop talking for a while, I'll make a start. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't think that really makes sense. I think we're better off reviewing the existing content rather than cutting it down wholesale. I would disagree that the AfD materially questioned his influence in the design of tall buildings (although, paradoxically, I'm not sure that's what he is best known for?); rather there were suggestions of problematic sourcing (but even then, I'm not so sure). I do think this business of re-inserting the "Publications"/References section in the past day doesn't make much sense to me; maybe throw those items here on the Talk page (or on a User page?) and keep them as resources for people fixing the article but not as references themselves. I have no idea what "if everybody off-wiki will stop talking" means; what does that mean? Is it a request for no further edits while you work? Or no further discussion? (!) jhawkinson (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it was a warning that I might be slow because off-wiki I am being constantly interrupted. I've made a good start; see my edit summaries as well as the edits themselves for what I've been doing. Note that I rescued the "publications" that were not by him to use as references if possible—articles need third-party references. I have found some of them are doublets to news articles already cited. At least one was not helpful (it didn't mention him, just the company.) I have not been able to finish today, unfortunately.

The AfD nominator argued that many of the references were misleading in that they mentioned the company but didn't explicitly say that Haney in particular played a major role in the project. They need to be examined in that light. And the list of prominent buildings in my shorter version of the lede needs to be reduced still further, because there's information in the body of the article about only a few buildings. That's better than deleting the article or listing no buildings, obviously; but we should not say he was lead architect on buildings where he was not. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Here from work. Drmies cut the remaining "Further reading" refs in this edit; pinging him in because he may not be aware of this discussion. I copied the ones about the Al Hamra Tower to that article's talk page; I already transferred a description of its architecture in modified form to that article with its attached reference. That article was extremely lacking in information and references; I'm a bit nervous that this article may still contain material that ought to be but is not in articles about other individual buildings, for example the Ottawa embassy. But concerning this article, I've completed most of what I had in mind; what I haven't done is checked most of the references to make sure they are useful to the article. I would also search for more about him, particularly to see whether more of the list of buildings can be talked about in the article text (independent refs crediting him as lead architect and saying something about the building) but judging by the AfD, there isn't much more out there that's more than name checking. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Alhamra Tower.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)