Talk:Richard F. Colburn

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Maryland Mid‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deleting the controversy section[edit]

isn't it about time the person editing from a state government IP be reported to the media, tagged as a vandal, or banned by wikipedia for repeatedly deleting the well-documented controversy section about colburn? 12.187.236.194 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section[edit]

Easternshorebuff desires the controversy section be be completely removed as "not relevant to this page". I have asked him to expand on his request, and that we should discuss his request here. David (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has deleted the section again, and I've restored, but will not restore again, as to avoid an edit war. I believe the section should remain, but request input from others as to their opinion. Thank you. David (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's good you're not edit-warring, but that section has some serious BLP issues. The first paragraph is unsourced. The third seems to be sourced, but I'm not sure it's a reliable source. The fourth and fifth paragraph seem excessive, too. That doesn't mean the other editor should just delete it without giving a reason, but you should read the BLP guidelines before adding scandalous material. A trimmed-down, well-sourced section would be appropriate. --Coemgenus 20:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it could use work. I was not the original editor who added the information, only restored what user easternshorebuff deleted. David (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Well, I definitely agree without that complete deletion without discussion is not the answer. --Coemgenus 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna introduce a rehashed version of the Controversies section. Hopefully it'll be a little more concise but I'm happy with the sources. I imagine it will be unilaterally reverted as 'irrelevant' fairly soon but I'll give it a shot Bob House 884 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the "watermelon" section -- it was sourced to a press release, and I couldn't see that any WP:RSs had picked it up and run with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alternate source for the "watermelon" section: [1] David (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate sources for the term paper controversy: [2] [3] [4] [5] David (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like those all came from about the same period -- is there any long-term coverage?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does their need to be? Allegations must be 'notable, relevant, and well-documented' and this one is surely? Notable for significant coverage in local sources and the Washington Post, relevant since it directly relates to his legislative activities and resources and well-documented due to numerous RSs as have been given. The latest source indicated (18/04/05) is dated almost a month after the Baltimore Sun's article (22/03/05) - which seems like relatively long term coverage for a political 'scandal' in any case, unless political stories are only to be considered worthy of inclusion if they still make for watercooler talk 6 months down the line. Bob House 884 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]