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(1) sources cited in articles aren't required to be available online per WP:PUBLISH; and (2) the source could've been archived, and an archived version of it is available online. If you're unwilling or unable for whatever reason to find an archived version of the source yourself, you can add the template Template:Dead link to the source instead of removing it; just follow the instructions on the template's page.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)

Thanks @Marchjuly. My conversational tone in making "everyone happy" was misleading. No plans to do anything other than play by the rules you've very clearly and generously laid out. The client is also well-aware of much of what you note here, including "it's written about them, not for them." I really appreciate the time and attention you've given me, and will try to avoid taking advantage of your valuable time in the future! Sigridtx (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Marchjuly. On June 10 I posted the edit request below regarding the Harry L. Williams article. To date, I haven't received any response. I certainly realize it can take a while, but hoped you could provide some feedback since we've connected on this before. That is, feedback to edits themselves, and/or if there's a way to "escalate" this to expose this to more editors if this needs wider attention. I'm happy to post the edits another way if, for any reason you can't view them on this thread. I'm still learning. Sigridtx (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC). Thank you!

@Sigridtx: Your edit request probably went unnoticed because you didn't use the template {{Edit request}}. Using the template will add this page to a category/list of pages with similar requests; this makes it easier for those answering such requests to find them. You don't need to use a template to make an edit request, but it could be quite some time before someone randomly stumbles upon it. Anyway, you can follow the guidance at WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and move to the next step of the process if you don't want to muck around with the template at this point. You could try asking for help on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects listed at the top of this page or asking for help at WP:COIN. If your edit request hasn't really change since you posted it, you don't need to repost everything in any new discussion you start. You can just state you posted an edit request on this article's talk page and would like someone to take a look at it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Sigridtx (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hello. I am making my first Edit Request regarding the Harry L. Williams article, so I sincerely hope I am doing this correctly. This is without the template in accordance with the "how to" section on WP:EDITREQUEST.

This involves (1) A proposed revision to the lead section, and (2) Proposed additional content to the Career section. I've marked these revisions in italics to differentiate from current.

(1) Lead section (first two sentences)

Harry L. Williams is an American educator who is president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (TMCF), an organization representing the Black College Community. Williams oversees its which includes 53 member-schools.

Reason for revision: To avoid repetitive usage of Williams' name between the current second and third sentences. This occurred when content was removed by another editor based on the comment "trim puffery and resume like content as well as wording from lead that belongs in linked article not here."

(2) Career section (following the current first sentence about Williams selected as president and CEO)

In 2017, Williams was selected by the TMCF board of directors to be the next president and CEO.^[7] During Williams' tenure as TMCF president and CEO, TMCF partnered with corporations resulting in multimillion-dollar research grants and scholarships to HBCUs [cite AOL story], and named the first woman in the organization's history to chair its board of directors [cite Forbes story]. In 2022, TMCF collaborated with the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), and Partnership for Education Advancement to form the HBCU Transformation Project [cite AP story], of which Williams served as one of four project leaders [cite Transformation Project web page].

Reason for revision: Based on an earlier edit that removed a sentence as not complying with your neutrality policy, this is an attempt to add some level of substance regarding the TMCF portion of Williams' career in hopes this type of content and the associated citations meet your requirements. Sigridtx (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed edits to Harry L. Williams article

I previously posted an edit request without using the Edit Request template in June, regarding the Harry L. Williams article. As I interpreted at the time, I was to post without the template first to gain consensus before moving to the template phase. After not receiving any response, I was advised that the template would improve these edits' chances of getting noticed. There are two sections these proposed edits impact. I have included the proposed changes in italics below.

(1) Lead section (first two sentences)

Harry L. Williams is an American educator who is president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (TMCF), an organization representing the Black College Community. Williams oversees its which includes 53 member-schools.

Reason for revision: To avoid repetitive usage of Williams' name between the current second and third sentences. This occurred when content was removed by another editor based on the comment "trim puffery and resume like content as well as wording from lead that belongs in linked article not here."

(2) Career section (following the current first sentence about Williams selected as president and CEO)

In 2017, Williams was selected by the TMCF board of directors to be the next president and CEO.^[7] During Williams' tenure as TMCF president and CEO, TMCF partnered with corporations resulting in multimillion-dollar research grants and scholarships to HBCUs [cite AOL story], and named the first woman in the organization's history to chair its board of directors [cite Forbes story]. In 2022, TMCF collaborated with the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), and Partnership for Education Advancement to form the HBCU Transformation Project [cite AP story], of which Williams served as one of four project leaders [cite Transformation Project web page].

Reason for revision: Based on an earlier edit that removed a sentence as not complying with your neutrality policy, this is an attempt to add some level of substance regarding the TMCF portion of Williams' career in hopes this type of content and the associated citations meet your requirements.

I am still new at this, so, if this is not the proper protocol or correct approach, your help will be appreciated. Many thanks in advance. Sigridtx (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: With regard to the neutrality tag at the top of the article, which appears to be the source of concern that this edit request is intended to resolve...

It doesn't seem to me that making a very minor copy editing change to one sentence and then adding further material listing the subject's accomplishments can possibly go any way towards making a desirable change in terms of changing the neutrality. If anything, the change requested above will make the neutrality significantly worse.

I would suggest that, rather than trying to add further non-neutral material, the underlying issue will only be resolved by toning down the currently existing material.

Some thoughts on how that might be achieved...

Complete removal of the "awards and honours" section.

Instead of "selected by [etc]" (re: becoming CEO at TMCF), try simply "became CEO".

I don't believe that adding his full educational background is beneficial, surely just the doctorate details would be sufficient?

The section re: accomplishments at DCU seems entirely promotional.

(Ditto for the list of accomplishments in the request above.)

The reference to writing op-eds, and the direct links to those op-eds, seems promotional in intent and designed to serve an advocacy agenda which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

I do agree with you that the removal of one instance of Williams' name in the lead section would be beneficial, but it is small potatoes compared to the issues above.

Can I also suggest that some of the material that you are seeking to implement here duplicates forms of language that had previously been removed from the article by user Melcous in this edit back in May [1] (eg. duplicating mentions of "during his tenure as [X]", reference to "multi-million dollar"). It goes without saying that attempting to re-add material that had previously been removed by a non-conflicted editor as "puffery and resume like content", and claiming that it in some way resolves the neutrality issues is exceptionally ill-advised and does not give a good impression of what the intent of the edit request was supposed to be.

I appreciate that the above notes will not be what you had hoped to see, but hopefully they go some way towards clarifying the current concerns, and thus hopefully will assist you in trying to resolve them. Axad12 (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A brief further note...

I see that some of the previous concerns raised over this article (e.g. at Teahouse) relate to non-independent sourcing. In that regard I do give you credit for the sourcing you have used in your request above. However, it is important to note here that no amount of independent sourcing will ever justify the inclusion of what appears to be text with a promotional intent. So, the issue is what the article here actually says, and how it goes about saying it, not whether it is possible to construct well-sourced promotional text.

I think this is an important distinction for COI editors to bear in mind. Hopefully this note clarifies the point. Axad12 (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That said, however, source 7 does seem to be fully independent. But that is a minor detail in the bigger picture above. Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Axad12. Regarding the material under "Career" I was proposing, if a subject holds a verifiable top position within an organization, then listing what the organization, not the subject, accomplished is still considered promotional and disallowed, correct?

In other words, listing examples of the organization's (TMCF's) "milestones" that occurred during the subject's (Dr. Williams') tenure still violates your neutrality requirements? I'm not taking issue, just gut-checking and learning here. I need to add that I'm not including the duplicated language you mentioned, that is duly noted.

Regarding toning down the current material... much of that I did not add (DCU accomplishments, awards and honors, op-eds, etc. you note). Those were written by someone prior to my involvement. When I was tasked with updating this article, that material had not been disputed. In making these changes, we're not left with much and a concern. Is there anything here that I've mentioned that could warrant further consideration? Again, I'm not including the duplicated forms of language. I appreciate your time and attention very much! [[[User:Sigridtx|Sigridtx]] (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies but if you have no interest in resolving the neutrality issues with this article then I don't really see that there is anything further to discuss.

As I said before, adding further promotional material does not make that matter go away, it makes it become considerably worse.

If you just wish to prevaricate around that issue and say that it wasn't your doing then really we are just wasting our time, aren't we? (Except that you are being paid to waste my time.) Axad12 (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing was intended as contentious or to prevaricate whatsoever. If I could ask, am I able to make the changes that you noted to resolve the neutrality issue, or does that need to be via an Edit Request template? Thank you. Sigridtx (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)