This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erica C. Barnett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 November 2019. The result of the discussion was delete. |
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm B K. I know Ms Barnett, but created this page on my own initiative and without her prompting (but with her permission, because it's the polite thing to do). I've been a Wikipedia editor for 14 years. An administrator (not Ms Barnett) brought the page to my attention again, and another asked me to post on this talk page.
Please read the biographies of living persons (BLPs) page linked from the banner at the top of this page before posting. The short version: neutral point of view (NPOV) is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia, and in a biography of a living person, editors need to maintain NPOV with extra caution. "Biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."
To give an example for new editors of what non-NPOV looks like, one early edit stated that "Barnett is an alcoholic". There is no way to read this short sentence as NPOV—especially given the NPOV of the source, an article entitled "A journalist gets sober." The article never uses the word "alcoholic," probably because the word has clear derogatory implication in current U.S. culture; that word was inserted by the editor. Although the editor may be able to argue that the statement is factually true (depending on one's beliefs about alcoholism), factual truth is too low of a standard for a BLP. The standard is an NPOV "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". More NPOV summaries of the article might include "Barnett is a recovering alcoholic" or "Barnett had been an alcoholic but is now sober."
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy ( It's an official rule!). Just as editors can argue that their statement is strictly, technically correct or is backed up by some Wikipedia rule, please note the urgent and important tone of the BLP page, indicating that NPOV and balance take precedence on BLP pages.
Ms Barnett seems to inspire strong feelings in some people. If a source has a hard slant and has no NPOV itself, it may not be reliable enough to cite. If an editor has sufficiently strong feelings that they may not be able to maintain balance, the best thing to do may be to refrain from editing.
Happy editing,
B k ( talk) 15:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Might be a mean question, but what's she done that's notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:886:D000:D16:E83F:D1F8:1D01 ( talk) 20:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is currently the target of vandalism. Ericacbarnett ( talk) 03:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
On October 26, User:Ericacbarnett removed the following section of this article due to "inaccurate information and unsourced speculation" [5]:
Barnett grew up in Texas and idolized Molly Ivins and Hunter S Thompson. [1] In 2009, she left a grocery store with a bottle of wine she did not pay for. [2] [3] She took an agreement with the court to have the city dismiss the theft charges. [4] [3] She later became sober and explained to an interviewer how her writing suffered when she was drunk. [1]
This section, as of datestamp, is currently not in the article. Should it be restored or left out?
Chetsford (
talk)
01:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
References:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
References
{{
Reflist-talk}}
, it is the sheer length of the Wikitext in the RfC statement - that is, the content that occurs between the {{
rfc}}
tag and the next timestamp after that. The refs in the statement of this RfC occupy 1,459 bytes of Wikitext, and that takes the RfC statement beyond what
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) can handle. That is why nothing is showing at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies other than the two links near the bottom; and if this situation persists for the next twelve hours or so, these RfCs will also not be publicised to
WP:FRS subscribers. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
16:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
For purposes of clarification, I should note I added the Template:Not a ballot to the above RfC to get ahead of the curve based on a tweet [7] just sent out by the subject of this article in which she addresses "the assholes who keep vandalizing my Wikipedia page ... i feel very sad for you, that all you have time to do with your lives is anonymously harass a female journalist" which was followed by several "@" mentions from her followers seeking to "help ECB" etc. While a WP:MEATPUPPET of the subject of this article was recently blocked [8], I don't feel a mere tweet of this type rises to the level of meatpuppetry. It is the reasonable reaction from a person dissatisfied with their WP entry and we should note Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Nonetheless, this may have a WP:CANVASSing effect, even if unintentional, and the template may be useful in introducing newly created editors to our discussion and WP:CONSENSUS process. Chetsford ( talk) 02:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Misplaced comment by an editor now unable to move it to appropriate section; GF collapsed
|
---|
|
I don't like it that Erica C. Barnett is editing her own page. Or at least a user with her name is doing it.
I get she doesn't like the vandalism and appreciate the reverts. But she is also making editorial changes to the page.
Why don't you just make this page go back to the way it was 2 weeks ago and lock it for a while to let everyone cool off.
ConfirmedToBeAHorse ( talk) 02:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
In this case, we have a more important policy to consider: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Any content about living persons is held to a much higher standard than other Wikipedia content, and anything controversial or potentially negative which is not extremely well sourced must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The earlier versions of this article had negative content that was highly dubious, and not written to the high standards of the BLP policy, and was not sufficiently well sourced. It also over-emphasized negative information. With biographies, if an article is missing content and only has coverage of negative information, creating an unbalanced viewpoint, the negative content has to be deleted until the article is expanded. WP:Editing policy normally allows an unbalanced article to be tagged for expansion and left in a NPOV state, but not a BLP.
So you can't have a bunch of dirt about somebody until you've written a comprehensive survey of their entire public life. Attack pages are never allowed.
This is a roundabout way of saying I don't think the lines about the Atlantic article and retraction should be kept. The Katie Herzog article in The Stranger has been called a hit piece by more than one observer, and we have to do better any time we are citing allegations of wrongdoing. The entire incident appears to have amounted to a lot of nothing anyway. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder that you will need BLP noticeboard consensus to establish that BLP violations have taken place — if this fails to happen, the invocation of BLP may be seen to be unsubstantiated. El_C 07:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
On October 26 Ericacbarnett blanked a section of this article [9] which read:
While writing for TheAtlantic.com later in 2016, she erroneously accused Seattle radio's Ron & Don Show of encouraging listeners to harass a city council member after a contentious sports vote eliminating the possibility of a new sports arena. [1] [2]The Atlantic retracted the story shortly after. [1] [2]
As of this datestamp, the lines in question are not part of the article. Should these lines be restored or omitted?
Chetsford (
talk)
07:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
[1]
[2]
References
I'd like to know what this information adds to the article. If Barnett was widely considered unreliable, this could be cited as evidence. But that' is not the case: numerous diverse professional sources cite her as reliable. So what exactly are we trying to tell readers with this? What's the point? We don't put negative content into a BLP without a reason. Just because we can isn't good enough. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 07:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Some sentences in the current version now have three and even four footnotes. If this were a Good Article nomination, rather than a stub, one might object that it's citation overkill and that the footnotes should either be bundled or pared back. Perhaps that would be done to pass GA review. But in the case of stubs that need to be expanded. filling the page with "excess" citations serves to move the ball down the field, taking care of part of the work for future editors to build upon to expand to a full article. Generally when that has happened, the strings of 4 or 5 footnotes, as well as the pile of "further reading" or "external links" collecting at the bottom of the article get spread out through the enlarged article body. You can slap tags on it if you want, or tag the bottom of the article with {{ stub}}, or just let it go until somebody comes along to finish writing the article.
I'm only saying that with an article in early stages of development, it's nothing to panic over. It doesn't demand immediate action to stave off the death of Wikipedia or anything. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
We're back to what kind of appears to be an attempt to diminish and trivialize Barnett's work by demoting her from a journalist to a mere blogger, in this edit by Chetsford. So we had three footnotes supporting the job title of "journalist", [16] [17] [18], all of them from 2019. We don't need to stop there. Many further examples could be added, all form 2019: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Etc. It goes on and on. "Reporter" comes up: [24]. And "editor": [25].
Examples of her being called a blogger date waaaay back to 2012, 7 years ago [26], and a couple kind of a little more recent, from 2016 [27] 2017 [28]. I can't find many more.
She was a newspaper reporter (journalist), form 2000 to 2009, and after the Great Recession and 2009 decline of newspapers, worked freelance, worked in new media, and founded her own startup sites, publicola.net and thecisforcrank.com, and in the early years was sometimes called a blogger, but more recently, and more consistently journalist.
If the subject of a BLP used to have a paper route or work at McDonald's, should we add "paperboy" or "fast food worker" to their infobox? It's not harmful or wrong to call Barnett a blogger, or former blogger. It's more accurate to say that in earlier years, Barnett's thecisforcrank.com website was considered a mere blog, and as time went on it was taken more seriously, due to the work cited here in the article, and sources felt it more accurate to call her an "independent journalist" than a blogger. But again, she was a journalist for a decade before that; her "blogging" was an example of the changing media landscape, not her quitting the journalism profession.
So why are Wikipedia editors so hot to put her back down? It just looks like an attempt to take someone's accomplishments away, to make them seem like imposters. It looks like an attempt to magnify this period of work from 2010 through ~2017, to lower her status. Why?
I don't think it is consistent with the WP:BLP policy. We have copious sources who say she is an independent journalist. We have a handful of old sources that used to call her a blogger. WP:WEIGHT alone favors the 10+ sources, all recent, rather than the 3-4ish few, some quite old. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
You haven't given any explanation for why her occupation must say "blogger" at all. What is your intent? It's not all that helpful to stuff infoboxes with excess detail. And the need for, how many? Eight footnotes? She was a newspaper journalist for a decade, and then continued doing journalism on websites she founded, while working freelance for various established media. It's accurate and straightforward to put the simple word "journalist" in the infobox. Why do you feel the need to point out that her current journalistic medium is mostly via a blog, but you don't feel any compulsion to mention her decade of newspaper journalism? Why the blog medium but not print? You are probably aware of her several years appearing on KUOW radio every week, but haven't felt the need to mention she is a radio journalist, in addition to being a print journalist, and a blog journalist.
To me these multiple edits to change it to blogger, or add blogger ahead of journalist, seem to serve to invalidate and diminish her work. Most (not all) of the article edits you have made, and almost every talk page comment, has been to remove or cast doubt on laudatory descriptions and positive accomplishments, while adding negative content, such as alcoholism, or when you added a defamation lawsuit that went nowhere, subsequently judged to be of dubious BLP status, and to question whether her work is even notable, calling credit given her by major media as merely "routine". The desire to call her a blogger, without any interest in adding detail like newspaper reporter or radio journalist, is consistent with the overall pattern of edits. I easily found 10 sources to support "journalist", and if adding 10 more would matter, would take no time. It's taken a while to scrape together more than 3 to support "blogger". Apparently it's something you felt compelled to spend time searching for. Am I wrong in noting a pattern here?
In short, I favor just having "journalist" in the infobox. Short, accurate, not disputed. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." If we must (for reasons I'm unaware of as yet) stuff more detail into the infobox, then it should say newspaper reporter and newspaper editor for the years 2000-2009, and then for the years 2009-2019, blogger and independent journalist. And I guess mention weekly radio news analyst too? Somehow. Like I say, it seems easier to just say 'journalist', but if we must specify journalistic media, it seems kind of biased to arbitrarily pick and choose them. Again, my question is, why? What's the purpose of this? It appears to be to cast the subject in a worse light. If that isn't the purpose, what is it? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
You did this at the AfD page and you're losing that debate. It's not helping. It's also not scaring me off. It doesn't work, and it's going to blow up in your face. Quit it.
A constructive contribution would be to say in plain, simple words, why do you want to add "blogger" to the infobox occupation field, yet not add print, newspaper, radio, etc? You said it's because you found it in sources, but you are well aware sources verify she worked in print media, in newspapers, and on the radio. So why only blogger and not the others? And why can't we keep it simple and say journalist, since in all of these media, she was doing journalism? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
A quick update to the regular editors of this page: I've added the {{Notability}} tag atop this draft article, per the result of the recent AfD discussion which closed as delete. This should serve as a functional reminder prior to the article being submitted for consideration as part of the AfC process.
If you object, please, per bold, revert, discuss, let's discuss this and we can initiate a 30-day RfC process, as needed. : )
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
22:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erica C. Barnett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 November 2019. The result of the discussion was delete. |
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm B K. I know Ms Barnett, but created this page on my own initiative and without her prompting (but with her permission, because it's the polite thing to do). I've been a Wikipedia editor for 14 years. An administrator (not Ms Barnett) brought the page to my attention again, and another asked me to post on this talk page.
Please read the biographies of living persons (BLPs) page linked from the banner at the top of this page before posting. The short version: neutral point of view (NPOV) is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia, and in a biography of a living person, editors need to maintain NPOV with extra caution. "Biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."
To give an example for new editors of what non-NPOV looks like, one early edit stated that "Barnett is an alcoholic". There is no way to read this short sentence as NPOV—especially given the NPOV of the source, an article entitled "A journalist gets sober." The article never uses the word "alcoholic," probably because the word has clear derogatory implication in current U.S. culture; that word was inserted by the editor. Although the editor may be able to argue that the statement is factually true (depending on one's beliefs about alcoholism), factual truth is too low of a standard for a BLP. The standard is an NPOV "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". More NPOV summaries of the article might include "Barnett is a recovering alcoholic" or "Barnett had been an alcoholic but is now sober."
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy ( It's an official rule!). Just as editors can argue that their statement is strictly, technically correct or is backed up by some Wikipedia rule, please note the urgent and important tone of the BLP page, indicating that NPOV and balance take precedence on BLP pages.
Ms Barnett seems to inspire strong feelings in some people. If a source has a hard slant and has no NPOV itself, it may not be reliable enough to cite. If an editor has sufficiently strong feelings that they may not be able to maintain balance, the best thing to do may be to refrain from editing.
Happy editing,
B k ( talk) 15:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Might be a mean question, but what's she done that's notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:886:D000:D16:E83F:D1F8:1D01 ( talk) 20:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is currently the target of vandalism. Ericacbarnett ( talk) 03:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
On October 26, User:Ericacbarnett removed the following section of this article due to "inaccurate information and unsourced speculation" [5]:
Barnett grew up in Texas and idolized Molly Ivins and Hunter S Thompson. [1] In 2009, she left a grocery store with a bottle of wine she did not pay for. [2] [3] She took an agreement with the court to have the city dismiss the theft charges. [4] [3] She later became sober and explained to an interviewer how her writing suffered when she was drunk. [1]
This section, as of datestamp, is currently not in the article. Should it be restored or left out?
Chetsford (
talk)
01:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
References:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
References
{{
Reflist-talk}}
, it is the sheer length of the Wikitext in the RfC statement - that is, the content that occurs between the {{
rfc}}
tag and the next timestamp after that. The refs in the statement of this RfC occupy 1,459 bytes of Wikitext, and that takes the RfC statement beyond what
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) can handle. That is why nothing is showing at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies other than the two links near the bottom; and if this situation persists for the next twelve hours or so, these RfCs will also not be publicised to
WP:FRS subscribers. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
16:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
For purposes of clarification, I should note I added the Template:Not a ballot to the above RfC to get ahead of the curve based on a tweet [7] just sent out by the subject of this article in which she addresses "the assholes who keep vandalizing my Wikipedia page ... i feel very sad for you, that all you have time to do with your lives is anonymously harass a female journalist" which was followed by several "@" mentions from her followers seeking to "help ECB" etc. While a WP:MEATPUPPET of the subject of this article was recently blocked [8], I don't feel a mere tweet of this type rises to the level of meatpuppetry. It is the reasonable reaction from a person dissatisfied with their WP entry and we should note Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Nonetheless, this may have a WP:CANVASSing effect, even if unintentional, and the template may be useful in introducing newly created editors to our discussion and WP:CONSENSUS process. Chetsford ( talk) 02:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Misplaced comment by an editor now unable to move it to appropriate section; GF collapsed
|
---|
|
I don't like it that Erica C. Barnett is editing her own page. Or at least a user with her name is doing it.
I get she doesn't like the vandalism and appreciate the reverts. But she is also making editorial changes to the page.
Why don't you just make this page go back to the way it was 2 weeks ago and lock it for a while to let everyone cool off.
ConfirmedToBeAHorse ( talk) 02:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
In this case, we have a more important policy to consider: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Any content about living persons is held to a much higher standard than other Wikipedia content, and anything controversial or potentially negative which is not extremely well sourced must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The earlier versions of this article had negative content that was highly dubious, and not written to the high standards of the BLP policy, and was not sufficiently well sourced. It also over-emphasized negative information. With biographies, if an article is missing content and only has coverage of negative information, creating an unbalanced viewpoint, the negative content has to be deleted until the article is expanded. WP:Editing policy normally allows an unbalanced article to be tagged for expansion and left in a NPOV state, but not a BLP.
So you can't have a bunch of dirt about somebody until you've written a comprehensive survey of their entire public life. Attack pages are never allowed.
This is a roundabout way of saying I don't think the lines about the Atlantic article and retraction should be kept. The Katie Herzog article in The Stranger has been called a hit piece by more than one observer, and we have to do better any time we are citing allegations of wrongdoing. The entire incident appears to have amounted to a lot of nothing anyway. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder that you will need BLP noticeboard consensus to establish that BLP violations have taken place — if this fails to happen, the invocation of BLP may be seen to be unsubstantiated. El_C 07:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
On October 26 Ericacbarnett blanked a section of this article [9] which read:
While writing for TheAtlantic.com later in 2016, she erroneously accused Seattle radio's Ron & Don Show of encouraging listeners to harass a city council member after a contentious sports vote eliminating the possibility of a new sports arena. [1] [2]The Atlantic retracted the story shortly after. [1] [2]
As of this datestamp, the lines in question are not part of the article. Should these lines be restored or omitted?
Chetsford (
talk)
07:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
[1]
[2]
References
I'd like to know what this information adds to the article. If Barnett was widely considered unreliable, this could be cited as evidence. But that' is not the case: numerous diverse professional sources cite her as reliable. So what exactly are we trying to tell readers with this? What's the point? We don't put negative content into a BLP without a reason. Just because we can isn't good enough. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 07:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Some sentences in the current version now have three and even four footnotes. If this were a Good Article nomination, rather than a stub, one might object that it's citation overkill and that the footnotes should either be bundled or pared back. Perhaps that would be done to pass GA review. But in the case of stubs that need to be expanded. filling the page with "excess" citations serves to move the ball down the field, taking care of part of the work for future editors to build upon to expand to a full article. Generally when that has happened, the strings of 4 or 5 footnotes, as well as the pile of "further reading" or "external links" collecting at the bottom of the article get spread out through the enlarged article body. You can slap tags on it if you want, or tag the bottom of the article with {{ stub}}, or just let it go until somebody comes along to finish writing the article.
I'm only saying that with an article in early stages of development, it's nothing to panic over. It doesn't demand immediate action to stave off the death of Wikipedia or anything. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
We're back to what kind of appears to be an attempt to diminish and trivialize Barnett's work by demoting her from a journalist to a mere blogger, in this edit by Chetsford. So we had three footnotes supporting the job title of "journalist", [16] [17] [18], all of them from 2019. We don't need to stop there. Many further examples could be added, all form 2019: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Etc. It goes on and on. "Reporter" comes up: [24]. And "editor": [25].
Examples of her being called a blogger date waaaay back to 2012, 7 years ago [26], and a couple kind of a little more recent, from 2016 [27] 2017 [28]. I can't find many more.
She was a newspaper reporter (journalist), form 2000 to 2009, and after the Great Recession and 2009 decline of newspapers, worked freelance, worked in new media, and founded her own startup sites, publicola.net and thecisforcrank.com, and in the early years was sometimes called a blogger, but more recently, and more consistently journalist.
If the subject of a BLP used to have a paper route or work at McDonald's, should we add "paperboy" or "fast food worker" to their infobox? It's not harmful or wrong to call Barnett a blogger, or former blogger. It's more accurate to say that in earlier years, Barnett's thecisforcrank.com website was considered a mere blog, and as time went on it was taken more seriously, due to the work cited here in the article, and sources felt it more accurate to call her an "independent journalist" than a blogger. But again, she was a journalist for a decade before that; her "blogging" was an example of the changing media landscape, not her quitting the journalism profession.
So why are Wikipedia editors so hot to put her back down? It just looks like an attempt to take someone's accomplishments away, to make them seem like imposters. It looks like an attempt to magnify this period of work from 2010 through ~2017, to lower her status. Why?
I don't think it is consistent with the WP:BLP policy. We have copious sources who say she is an independent journalist. We have a handful of old sources that used to call her a blogger. WP:WEIGHT alone favors the 10+ sources, all recent, rather than the 3-4ish few, some quite old. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
You haven't given any explanation for why her occupation must say "blogger" at all. What is your intent? It's not all that helpful to stuff infoboxes with excess detail. And the need for, how many? Eight footnotes? She was a newspaper journalist for a decade, and then continued doing journalism on websites she founded, while working freelance for various established media. It's accurate and straightforward to put the simple word "journalist" in the infobox. Why do you feel the need to point out that her current journalistic medium is mostly via a blog, but you don't feel any compulsion to mention her decade of newspaper journalism? Why the blog medium but not print? You are probably aware of her several years appearing on KUOW radio every week, but haven't felt the need to mention she is a radio journalist, in addition to being a print journalist, and a blog journalist.
To me these multiple edits to change it to blogger, or add blogger ahead of journalist, seem to serve to invalidate and diminish her work. Most (not all) of the article edits you have made, and almost every talk page comment, has been to remove or cast doubt on laudatory descriptions and positive accomplishments, while adding negative content, such as alcoholism, or when you added a defamation lawsuit that went nowhere, subsequently judged to be of dubious BLP status, and to question whether her work is even notable, calling credit given her by major media as merely "routine". The desire to call her a blogger, without any interest in adding detail like newspaper reporter or radio journalist, is consistent with the overall pattern of edits. I easily found 10 sources to support "journalist", and if adding 10 more would matter, would take no time. It's taken a while to scrape together more than 3 to support "blogger". Apparently it's something you felt compelled to spend time searching for. Am I wrong in noting a pattern here?
In short, I favor just having "journalist" in the infobox. Short, accurate, not disputed. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." If we must (for reasons I'm unaware of as yet) stuff more detail into the infobox, then it should say newspaper reporter and newspaper editor for the years 2000-2009, and then for the years 2009-2019, blogger and independent journalist. And I guess mention weekly radio news analyst too? Somehow. Like I say, it seems easier to just say 'journalist', but if we must specify journalistic media, it seems kind of biased to arbitrarily pick and choose them. Again, my question is, why? What's the purpose of this? It appears to be to cast the subject in a worse light. If that isn't the purpose, what is it? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
You did this at the AfD page and you're losing that debate. It's not helping. It's also not scaring me off. It doesn't work, and it's going to blow up in your face. Quit it.
A constructive contribution would be to say in plain, simple words, why do you want to add "blogger" to the infobox occupation field, yet not add print, newspaper, radio, etc? You said it's because you found it in sources, but you are well aware sources verify she worked in print media, in newspapers, and on the radio. So why only blogger and not the others? And why can't we keep it simple and say journalist, since in all of these media, she was doing journalism? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
A quick update to the regular editors of this page: I've added the {{Notability}} tag atop this draft article, per the result of the recent AfD discussion which closed as delete. This should serve as a functional reminder prior to the article being submitted for consideration as part of the AfC process.
If you object, please, per bold, revert, discuss, let's discuss this and we can initiate a 30-day RfC process, as needed. : )
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
22:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)