This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
A quick new page on an academic, perhaps noted more in the media than via academic work, so far. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 11:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC))
The tone of "how to find" her articles, and the overall content seems a little too advert like with far too much use of primary sources. I noticed the article has a WP:SPA editor User:MdeBohun who appears to have a WP:COI. Widefox; talk 23:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we please have a discussion here? Woodroar ( talk) 19:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I looked over the story and removed any content that appeared unreferenced and promotion and then removed the conflicted header. If anyone objects please explain what benefit that header still has regarding the content now left in the story, ta Mosfetfaser ( talk) 14:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Whoever thinks she is not worth a story on wiki should open that discussion. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (May 2014) This older point was ok and did not require any headers? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Suzannah_Lipscomb&diff=608234184&oldid=607500424 perhaps better for the person to get this deleted ? Mosfetfaser ( talk) 11:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the last ok story, I don't see anything wrong with it. If she does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines please start a page for that chat Mosfetfaser ( talk) 12:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
this is trivia - it is being edit war into the story, I have no idea why - it is referenced to a google book link - it is not noteworthy -
She dedicated her 2012 book, A Visitor's Companion to Tudor England, to her husband Drake.
http://books.google.com/books?id=UFSI-Nc_cQcC&pg=PT2%7Caccessdate=26 April 2014|date=2013-06-04|publisher=Pegasus Books|isbn=9781453298909|pages=2–
Please discuss reasons for inclusion in the life story - ta - I told the edit war user of this chat - User:Katieh5584 .. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Katieh5584&diff=prev&oldid=60680993319:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC) - they just deleted it - I also left a note of this discussion for another multiple inserter of the disputed content User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom&diff=prev&oldid=606816862
it is also a sales link - Mosfetfaser ( talk) 19:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I think I get it now, a wikia editor doesn't like the idea that the person the story is about is not wanting mention of her estranged spouse in the story and the wikia editors don't like that and so they edit war to keep the factoid in the story referenced to a single google book sales link. Mosfetfaser ( talk) 04:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to add my thoughts to this. Whether or not Lipscomb wishes she'd made different personal choices is of no consequence to the content of this article. The majority of people who get divorced probably feel the same way about the person they married in happier times, but that doesn't mean details of a failed marriage should be erased from the public domain. What is important here, however, is whether we can reference it with a reliable, third party source, and a personal dedication in a book is regarded as a primary source, so not suitable as a reference in an encyclopedia. Interestingly, Google Books are used in plenty of links (I've used them myself, in fact), but I've never encountered something of this nature before. If she takes the view that is suggested about her marriage then it's unlikely she'll ever speak candidly about her personal life, meaning no reliable source to use here. Therefore, let's leave it out. This is Paul ( talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
One more for "leave it out without better sources". Yes, it's absolutely true that for most people a marriage is (a) noncontroversial, and (b) very important to their bio. But in this case, it seems that (a) her marriage is controversial, and (b) her marriage has been ignored by Wikipedia:reliable sources. So WP:BLP applies. Unless we get some better sources for the marriage, we should also leave it out. (BTW, there are a few blogs on the web that do mention the wedding, the date, and Drake's last name; but they're blogs. We need better than that.) -- GRuban ( talk) 14:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Clear "leave it out". Many books have a dedication, often to a family member. There is nothing remarkable about this, it is not worth mentioning in an article about an author.
for those interested in whether or not the marriage be covered, please join the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Suzannah_Lipscomb. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
In the header it claims - A Wikipedia contributor, User:MdeBohun (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
WP:SPI does not exist for this claim - what allowance for the addition of this header is there within wikia rules? what is the benefit or relation to the current published story for the reader? Mosfetfaser ( talk) 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I just went ahead and removed the header - it was pure speculation, and there is no benefit to the reader and not confirmed by wikia investigation - the article has also since any edits from the claimed writer been heavily edited Mosfetfaser ( talk) 15:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Editing at the request of the subject is not the same as a personal or professional connection to the subject; if it were, then every article edited by anyone after the subject complains (for example, through OTRS) would have to be marked that way. Unless there is a more specific statement about personal or professional connection ("I am her aunt"; "she is my co-worker"; something like that), that tag is not appropriate. Removing. -- GRuban ( talk) 01:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is one of the Worlds leading experts in History and a very visable TV personality on the BBC, History Channel etc- why on Earth would she not have a Wikipedia page? This looks like a case of some type of subterfuge. We need to work on getting this page back to its pristine state. It would appear that the person who caused all of this fuss is now banned? Thewho515 ( talk) 07:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzannah Lipscomb. Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is one of the Worlds leading experts in History and a very visable TV personality on the BBC, History Channel etc- why on Earth would she not have a Wikipedia page? I have read all of this and (now disabled) user RedPenofDoom? seemed to have started up all of this. In the process has dome a lot of damage to Dr Lipscombs Wiki page. I think it should be changed back. She is a very much a person of note! Thewho515 ( talk) 07:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Is the question be debated above simply whether or not to mention the existence of the marriage based on that dedication? I'll go ahead and note my perspective upon the matter as contingent upon the answer to that question. If it is a simple matter of noting the marriage as a matter of fact, I'm inclined to agree that the source is likely acceptable in that role, but possibly not sufficient; on the one hand, it may be primary, but primary sources are acceptable for making simple, non-synthetic claims, while on the other, lacking any kind of context (or even so much as a last name of the spouse or duration of the marriage), makes the addition of dubious encyclopedic value. I share the sentiment voiced above by This is Paul: whether she wants the marriage noted or not is of zero concern to our purposes here; if however we have no substantial, and source-able, details about the marriage beyond speculation about even the basics, it's best this element is left out until appropriate sources providing deeper context can be found. I don't know if the lack of details in this area is a result of her concerted efforts, she and her husband being private people, or just a lack of media interest in the detail, but it doesn't really matter to the content/sourcing assessment. Snow talk 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more Thewho515 ( talk) 03:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Why are we insisting on putting her married name as "also known as" when one source uses it? I did a quick Google search and... C'mon people. -- NeilN talk to me 01:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll wait for other editors to chime in. Things go a lot smoother that way :) -- NeilN talk to me 02:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It is what I have said all along re: name. It's still one source (Epsom College) No edit war was ever intended or necessary. Cheers Thewho515 ( talk) 03:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
NeilN I am not even going to change the name back to the proper "Lipscomb" and not "Lawhead" which is not accurate. User Lw1982 has chosen to make a FIFTH edit to the page. I expect they revert the name as it was left. It seemed like a rational agreement. This user was warned for edit warring. everyone should follow the rules or at least join in the discussion
Thewho515 (
talk) 10:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The definitive policy is given under [WP:NAME][WP:FULLNAME]: "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname." No policy reason has been presented for preferring Lawhead, and indeed the preponderance of the source weighs in favor of Lipscomb.
MarkBernstein (
talk) 16:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry: I meant WP:FULLNAME (see "maiden name") MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The chat at the delete page seems to be strongly supporting note worthy person and the story has now been improved by others than the coi editor and non primary sources are in plenty now so I took down the respective , related headers - Mosfetfaser ( talk) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Well done Thewho515 ( talk) 03:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
I don't know where else to ask this. This website is now more truthful, but I've found Wiki host this page: [ [4]] which includes many of the things that have been removed from this page. Can this celebrity page please be brought up to date - Suzannah Lipscomb has never published under the name Suzannah Lipscomb Lawhead, one of the many inaccuracies in this page. MdeBohun ( talk) 17:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Instead of wrangling about the subject's married name, someone might mine her scholarly papers. [ [5]] MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it also be useful to include all her awards that were on the page once, e.g. In 2011, she was awarded a public engagement grant (People Award) from the Wellcome Trust to fund ‘All the King’s Fools’, a performance project in which actors with learning disabilities played the Tudor period’s ‘naturalabout fools’ at Hampton Court Palace, which won a 2012 Museums + Heritage Award for Excellence. [1] And most prestigious of all, in 2012, she was awarded the Nancy Roelker Prize by the Sixteenth Century Society for her journal article, ‘Crossing Boundaries: Women’s Gossip, Insults and Violence in Sixteenth-Century France’ in French History (Vol 25, No. 4). [2]
You will also see that she did not start work at NCH in 2012, but in 2011. This is a quote from her website "In October 2011, she took up her post as Convenor for History and Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at New College of the Humanities [3]
I fail to see how reference [1] proves her middle names as there is absolutely no reference to them in this reference, so her middle names should be deleted.
I realise that as a hated COI person it is unlikely that anybody will take any notice of any of this, but if Wikipedia is seeking truth it seems quite ridiculous when everything I have said can be verified elsewhere. MdeBohun ( talk) 19:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
References
More references for All The King's Fools: [ [11]] [ [12]] [ [13]] [ [14]] [ [15]] [ [16]] [ [17]] I have repeated the History Today reference as it is a magazine, not a blog. MdeBohun ( talk) 22:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Done edits requested above. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 19:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Dealt with -- NeilN talk to me 19:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Can someone crop the image to a headshot to remove that incongruous and distracting ladder?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thank you!--- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I will agree. That looks much better. Thewho515 ( talk) 01:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Nationality info is constantly being added to this page with no reference. If a reliable source can be found I am happy for it to be added but if this is no source we shouldn't allow it to be continually be put on the page. Can an admin please prevent this? ( Lw1982 ( talk) 23:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
[WP:NATIONALITY] says the lede should contain the country where she is a citizen, national! or permanent resident. We certainly have source for residency, probable source for birth, and no one has offered the slightest reason to doubt. She's British. MarkBernstein ( talk) 13:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Looking through the page history I get the impression OTRS have recommended the Mail not be used as a source here. Could someone just confirm whether or not that is the case? Thanks, This is Paul ( talk) 12:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Looking for some consensus on her nationality. I've just restored this information after it was removed on the grounds it isn't sourced. As she was born in England (which we do have sourced) then her nationality is British, unless she states otherwise. Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 23:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you please provide the source that states she was born in England? ( Lw1982 ( talk) 23:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
There was a reference to the residence and I have now restored this. http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/suzannah-lipscombs-my-london-8985703.html. The ref to her nationality in the info box was wrong as it was the dailymail article that stated she grew up in Surrey, no mention of her birth place. ( Lw1982 ( talk) 00:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC))
Resolved by discussion and OTRS tickets. If this occurs in the future, and appears not to be getting anywhere, please refer to me or another agent on the response team, so we can help confirm identity and resolve this issue in a timely fashion. Thanks, -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 16:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Difficulties to find sources on her age? That means she wants to keep it to herself. She has not even indicated her graduation years from schools. Understandable. Young and cute woman does not want her age to be revealed. (My mom did the same, for many years. :) What if we just ignore that fact? Are we spies? Is there a blue-link thing on WP:NOTASPY? Let go of it. She just survived an AfD. Let us leave her (age) alone. My 2 cents. Regards. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
NeilN talk to me 14:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC) You stated that there had been no indication the subject objected, I was just pointing out to you that this is incorrect, otherwise I would not have put in the request to have her middle names removed.. Above ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) says "two middle names could be removed on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds if someone clearly representing the subject of the article complained." So I am complaining. This is supported by ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC) who says "it would be helpful to have a direct complaint from the subject". I am not the subject, but I represent her. MdeBohun ( talk) 19:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It's no big deal. Just remove the middle names and DOB. Things like this should be handled simply and courteously and without some big long argument. Everyking ( talk) 23:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Middle names I don't really care about. I oppose taking the DOB because as I've said repeatedly, that's standard biographical information. WP:DOB says, "If the subject [not anonymous users purportedly acting on behalf of the subject] complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, [are we saying Lipscomb is borderline notable?] err on the side of caution and simply list the year." (comments, emphasis mine). That's as far as I think we should go if pushed. -- NeilN talk to me 23:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps as a librarian I can explain the source of the LC data in question: The information is the LIbrary of Congress authority file, the primary repository of publicly known basic data about individuals who have written books. It is used universally for all library cataloging in the United States and, for US authors, internationally by way of the international VIAF file. It is used a as a source in many WP articles--I use it to help select the authoritative name and to add the birthdate for all articles on authors which do not have the information. The information is added normally at the time the first book by the author is cataloged, and the information is usually taken from the book itself, or information supplied by the author or publisher. In this case it was taken from the title page and publisher's dust jacket of the book mentioned, and from her doctoral thesis. Since the information comes from sources affiliated with the author, it is not absolutely authoritative, for she and her publisher can use what name they choose, and provide or not provide the year and date of birth(though in a PhD thesis it is usual to give the full legal name) In the past, the information also came from a search of reliable outside reference sources, but for over the last 20 years at least, the information is taken just as it is supplied. I do not consider it a "public record" in the usual sense; I consider it just a reliable secondary source for the author's public statement in her published works. In general, I think we would be remiss in not using it. Actors and other public performers and presenters are notorious (and I pick that word deliberately) for trying to conceal their actual birthdate. WP is an encyclopedia, not a press release. The performer is in control of their PR, but we need pay no attention to it. PR is what the subject wants to tell the public; an encyclopedia gives what the public may want to know. For a private figure I would not necessarily include the actual day; for a child I never would; for a person whose notability come from their own public performances (in this case, as well as writing), I consider it essential. I'm guessing here: when she wrote her thesis, and when she published her book, she did not then envision herself as a public figure,and gave the information as matter of course just as you or I might do. She may later have wished to do otherwise, We're a reference work, and should stick to the record. TheEC may want electronic information changed back and forth as it suits the individual--there are situations where this may be appropriate, but public figures are not want of them. I consider an adult who chooses to appear in a feature on television a public figure. If the EU thinks otherwise, it's carrying on the totalitarian pattern of some European countries who thought they needed to control and revise what is known by the populace. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the Library of Congress counts as a secondary source here. It sounds like the Library of Congress indiscriminately collates this information from all published books. If so, then it doesn't contain "interpretation, analysis, or evaluation" of the information. That's like claiming that a phone book is a secondary source for someone's address because each address in the phone book is copied from somewhere. Furthermore, the spirit of the rule is that secondary sources are required for such information because we should only be publishing information that other people consider to be important. Getting information that is published by one or two sources, even if they are technically secondary, but which is ignored by the vast majority of sources, violates the spirit of the rule. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Possible compromiseUse "Suzannah Lipscomb, born 1978" in the opening sentence and infobox, and cite it to the Library of Congress record. Not giving the middle names or date of birth within the article does not lead to a significant loss of context, and there are indications that the subject of the article has objected on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds. This is not the first article where the subject has objected to the full name and date of birth. If they have not been widely disseminated in secondary sources, the policy is to err on the side of caution and respect the subject's wishes.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Identity theftQuery to those editors mentioning identity theft. Are you supporting the removal of birth dates from all less well-known BLPs? Because we have a lot of them... -- NeilN talk to me 12:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Voceditenore I was very surprised to read your rather rude reference to me and another editor on the Suzannah Lipscomb page "increasingly disruptive attempts by her family and acquaintances to micro-manage this article". You talk about a Jimmy Wales, somebody I have never even heard of. Sorry, I think you are attacking the wrong person. I have never mentioned identity theft, just the fact that one uses ones date of birth increasingly for security. Is that too difficult for you to understand? I have to say that professionally I have rarely come across such a rude, self-important bunch of nobodies. I have no idea who the other editor you are insulting is, but seeing as you have made it perfectly clear that even asking for something on the talk page by a COI results in insults, I won't bother mentioning anything again. What is more I will treat all the negative things I read on other people's Wiki sites with the contempt they deserve, because you lot don't have a clue what you are doing and for some reason or other only like to write negative things about people.-- MdeBohun ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
Must all her Christian names be mentioned? I see that they are now in the prose as it's been suggested that if they are in the 'silly' box they should be in prose too, but she has never been known by these names. MdeBohun ( talk) 14:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
MarkBernstein Thank you for explaining that, understood. MdeBohun ( talk) 21:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
stop messin about with her name
this is a primary source
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2010030157.html
wikia is now insisting on publishing personal details about this person that have never been reported elsewhere
Mosfetfaser ( talk) 18:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Have just restored this again since it was removed a short while ago without apparent consensus to do that, and with the argument that LOC is a primary source. If there is a good and valid reason for removing this sourced information then let's hear it. This is Paul ( talk) 18:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
After having just added some details to an edit-warring warning on an editor's talk page (see User_talk:Mosfetfaser#May_2014_3, I noticed the edits in question add a date of birth based on a Primary source. However, WP:BLPPRIMARY says not to do that:
Apologies to User:Mosfetfaser. I believe you are correct to have removed that information (but you are not correct to edit war to do so). JoeSperrazza ( talk) 18:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's not go overboard. First, the LOC information is probably, in effect, a secondary source. Second, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia for innocuous and uncontroversial data -- and a historians birth date seems precisely the sort of thing where this policy makes sense. Finally, do we have any reason to doubt the birth date? To think it might be controversial or damaging? Is this dispute merely for the sake of disputation? If not, what is the issue? MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit [27] was really uncool. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact - it appears that someone logged out to revert to their favorite version:
JoeSperrazza ( talk) 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Note that it's not just the Library of Congress authority record which uses her full names: if you Google the long form of her name there are several company directorship databases such as this one which show her name and, in this case, date of birth minus day of month. Pam D 21:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
May I suggest that as her title when at the University of East Anglia was shown as 'Lecturer in history', that her current title of 'Convenor for History and Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History' at the New College of the Humanities also be stated, rather than just the bland 'a member of the faculty'.
Thanks very much. MdeBohun ( talk) 16:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
A quick new page on an academic, perhaps noted more in the media than via academic work, so far. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 11:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC))
The tone of "how to find" her articles, and the overall content seems a little too advert like with far too much use of primary sources. I noticed the article has a WP:SPA editor User:MdeBohun who appears to have a WP:COI. Widefox; talk 23:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we please have a discussion here? Woodroar ( talk) 19:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I looked over the story and removed any content that appeared unreferenced and promotion and then removed the conflicted header. If anyone objects please explain what benefit that header still has regarding the content now left in the story, ta Mosfetfaser ( talk) 14:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Whoever thinks she is not worth a story on wiki should open that discussion. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (May 2014) This older point was ok and did not require any headers? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Suzannah_Lipscomb&diff=608234184&oldid=607500424 perhaps better for the person to get this deleted ? Mosfetfaser ( talk) 11:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the last ok story, I don't see anything wrong with it. If she does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines please start a page for that chat Mosfetfaser ( talk) 12:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
this is trivia - it is being edit war into the story, I have no idea why - it is referenced to a google book link - it is not noteworthy -
She dedicated her 2012 book, A Visitor's Companion to Tudor England, to her husband Drake.
http://books.google.com/books?id=UFSI-Nc_cQcC&pg=PT2%7Caccessdate=26 April 2014|date=2013-06-04|publisher=Pegasus Books|isbn=9781453298909|pages=2–
Please discuss reasons for inclusion in the life story - ta - I told the edit war user of this chat - User:Katieh5584 .. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Katieh5584&diff=prev&oldid=60680993319:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC) - they just deleted it - I also left a note of this discussion for another multiple inserter of the disputed content User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom&diff=prev&oldid=606816862
it is also a sales link - Mosfetfaser ( talk) 19:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I think I get it now, a wikia editor doesn't like the idea that the person the story is about is not wanting mention of her estranged spouse in the story and the wikia editors don't like that and so they edit war to keep the factoid in the story referenced to a single google book sales link. Mosfetfaser ( talk) 04:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to add my thoughts to this. Whether or not Lipscomb wishes she'd made different personal choices is of no consequence to the content of this article. The majority of people who get divorced probably feel the same way about the person they married in happier times, but that doesn't mean details of a failed marriage should be erased from the public domain. What is important here, however, is whether we can reference it with a reliable, third party source, and a personal dedication in a book is regarded as a primary source, so not suitable as a reference in an encyclopedia. Interestingly, Google Books are used in plenty of links (I've used them myself, in fact), but I've never encountered something of this nature before. If she takes the view that is suggested about her marriage then it's unlikely she'll ever speak candidly about her personal life, meaning no reliable source to use here. Therefore, let's leave it out. This is Paul ( talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
One more for "leave it out without better sources". Yes, it's absolutely true that for most people a marriage is (a) noncontroversial, and (b) very important to their bio. But in this case, it seems that (a) her marriage is controversial, and (b) her marriage has been ignored by Wikipedia:reliable sources. So WP:BLP applies. Unless we get some better sources for the marriage, we should also leave it out. (BTW, there are a few blogs on the web that do mention the wedding, the date, and Drake's last name; but they're blogs. We need better than that.) -- GRuban ( talk) 14:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Clear "leave it out". Many books have a dedication, often to a family member. There is nothing remarkable about this, it is not worth mentioning in an article about an author.
for those interested in whether or not the marriage be covered, please join the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Suzannah_Lipscomb. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
In the header it claims - A Wikipedia contributor, User:MdeBohun (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
WP:SPI does not exist for this claim - what allowance for the addition of this header is there within wikia rules? what is the benefit or relation to the current published story for the reader? Mosfetfaser ( talk) 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I just went ahead and removed the header - it was pure speculation, and there is no benefit to the reader and not confirmed by wikia investigation - the article has also since any edits from the claimed writer been heavily edited Mosfetfaser ( talk) 15:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Editing at the request of the subject is not the same as a personal or professional connection to the subject; if it were, then every article edited by anyone after the subject complains (for example, through OTRS) would have to be marked that way. Unless there is a more specific statement about personal or professional connection ("I am her aunt"; "she is my co-worker"; something like that), that tag is not appropriate. Removing. -- GRuban ( talk) 01:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is one of the Worlds leading experts in History and a very visable TV personality on the BBC, History Channel etc- why on Earth would she not have a Wikipedia page? This looks like a case of some type of subterfuge. We need to work on getting this page back to its pristine state. It would appear that the person who caused all of this fuss is now banned? Thewho515 ( talk) 07:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzannah Lipscomb. Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is one of the Worlds leading experts in History and a very visable TV personality on the BBC, History Channel etc- why on Earth would she not have a Wikipedia page? I have read all of this and (now disabled) user RedPenofDoom? seemed to have started up all of this. In the process has dome a lot of damage to Dr Lipscombs Wiki page. I think it should be changed back. She is a very much a person of note! Thewho515 ( talk) 07:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Is the question be debated above simply whether or not to mention the existence of the marriage based on that dedication? I'll go ahead and note my perspective upon the matter as contingent upon the answer to that question. If it is a simple matter of noting the marriage as a matter of fact, I'm inclined to agree that the source is likely acceptable in that role, but possibly not sufficient; on the one hand, it may be primary, but primary sources are acceptable for making simple, non-synthetic claims, while on the other, lacking any kind of context (or even so much as a last name of the spouse or duration of the marriage), makes the addition of dubious encyclopedic value. I share the sentiment voiced above by This is Paul: whether she wants the marriage noted or not is of zero concern to our purposes here; if however we have no substantial, and source-able, details about the marriage beyond speculation about even the basics, it's best this element is left out until appropriate sources providing deeper context can be found. I don't know if the lack of details in this area is a result of her concerted efforts, she and her husband being private people, or just a lack of media interest in the detail, but it doesn't really matter to the content/sourcing assessment. Snow talk 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more Thewho515 ( talk) 03:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Why are we insisting on putting her married name as "also known as" when one source uses it? I did a quick Google search and... C'mon people. -- NeilN talk to me 01:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll wait for other editors to chime in. Things go a lot smoother that way :) -- NeilN talk to me 02:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It is what I have said all along re: name. It's still one source (Epsom College) No edit war was ever intended or necessary. Cheers Thewho515 ( talk) 03:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
NeilN I am not even going to change the name back to the proper "Lipscomb" and not "Lawhead" which is not accurate. User Lw1982 has chosen to make a FIFTH edit to the page. I expect they revert the name as it was left. It seemed like a rational agreement. This user was warned for edit warring. everyone should follow the rules or at least join in the discussion
Thewho515 (
talk) 10:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The definitive policy is given under [WP:NAME][WP:FULLNAME]: "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname." No policy reason has been presented for preferring Lawhead, and indeed the preponderance of the source weighs in favor of Lipscomb.
MarkBernstein (
talk) 16:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry: I meant WP:FULLNAME (see "maiden name") MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The chat at the delete page seems to be strongly supporting note worthy person and the story has now been improved by others than the coi editor and non primary sources are in plenty now so I took down the respective , related headers - Mosfetfaser ( talk) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Well done Thewho515 ( talk) 03:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
I don't know where else to ask this. This website is now more truthful, but I've found Wiki host this page: [ [4]] which includes many of the things that have been removed from this page. Can this celebrity page please be brought up to date - Suzannah Lipscomb has never published under the name Suzannah Lipscomb Lawhead, one of the many inaccuracies in this page. MdeBohun ( talk) 17:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Instead of wrangling about the subject's married name, someone might mine her scholarly papers. [ [5]] MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it also be useful to include all her awards that were on the page once, e.g. In 2011, she was awarded a public engagement grant (People Award) from the Wellcome Trust to fund ‘All the King’s Fools’, a performance project in which actors with learning disabilities played the Tudor period’s ‘naturalabout fools’ at Hampton Court Palace, which won a 2012 Museums + Heritage Award for Excellence. [1] And most prestigious of all, in 2012, she was awarded the Nancy Roelker Prize by the Sixteenth Century Society for her journal article, ‘Crossing Boundaries: Women’s Gossip, Insults and Violence in Sixteenth-Century France’ in French History (Vol 25, No. 4). [2]
You will also see that she did not start work at NCH in 2012, but in 2011. This is a quote from her website "In October 2011, she took up her post as Convenor for History and Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at New College of the Humanities [3]
I fail to see how reference [1] proves her middle names as there is absolutely no reference to them in this reference, so her middle names should be deleted.
I realise that as a hated COI person it is unlikely that anybody will take any notice of any of this, but if Wikipedia is seeking truth it seems quite ridiculous when everything I have said can be verified elsewhere. MdeBohun ( talk) 19:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
References
More references for All The King's Fools: [ [11]] [ [12]] [ [13]] [ [14]] [ [15]] [ [16]] [ [17]] I have repeated the History Today reference as it is a magazine, not a blog. MdeBohun ( talk) 22:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Done edits requested above. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 19:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Dealt with -- NeilN talk to me 19:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Can someone crop the image to a headshot to remove that incongruous and distracting ladder?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thank you!--- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I will agree. That looks much better. Thewho515 ( talk) 01:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Nationality info is constantly being added to this page with no reference. If a reliable source can be found I am happy for it to be added but if this is no source we shouldn't allow it to be continually be put on the page. Can an admin please prevent this? ( Lw1982 ( talk) 23:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
[WP:NATIONALITY] says the lede should contain the country where she is a citizen, national! or permanent resident. We certainly have source for residency, probable source for birth, and no one has offered the slightest reason to doubt. She's British. MarkBernstein ( talk) 13:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Looking through the page history I get the impression OTRS have recommended the Mail not be used as a source here. Could someone just confirm whether or not that is the case? Thanks, This is Paul ( talk) 12:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Looking for some consensus on her nationality. I've just restored this information after it was removed on the grounds it isn't sourced. As she was born in England (which we do have sourced) then her nationality is British, unless she states otherwise. Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 23:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you please provide the source that states she was born in England? ( Lw1982 ( talk) 23:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
There was a reference to the residence and I have now restored this. http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/suzannah-lipscombs-my-london-8985703.html. The ref to her nationality in the info box was wrong as it was the dailymail article that stated she grew up in Surrey, no mention of her birth place. ( Lw1982 ( talk) 00:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC))
Resolved by discussion and OTRS tickets. If this occurs in the future, and appears not to be getting anywhere, please refer to me or another agent on the response team, so we can help confirm identity and resolve this issue in a timely fashion. Thanks, -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 16:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Difficulties to find sources on her age? That means she wants to keep it to herself. She has not even indicated her graduation years from schools. Understandable. Young and cute woman does not want her age to be revealed. (My mom did the same, for many years. :) What if we just ignore that fact? Are we spies? Is there a blue-link thing on WP:NOTASPY? Let go of it. She just survived an AfD. Let us leave her (age) alone. My 2 cents. Regards. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
NeilN talk to me 14:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC) You stated that there had been no indication the subject objected, I was just pointing out to you that this is incorrect, otherwise I would not have put in the request to have her middle names removed.. Above ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) says "two middle names could be removed on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds if someone clearly representing the subject of the article complained." So I am complaining. This is supported by ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC) who says "it would be helpful to have a direct complaint from the subject". I am not the subject, but I represent her. MdeBohun ( talk) 19:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It's no big deal. Just remove the middle names and DOB. Things like this should be handled simply and courteously and without some big long argument. Everyking ( talk) 23:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Middle names I don't really care about. I oppose taking the DOB because as I've said repeatedly, that's standard biographical information. WP:DOB says, "If the subject [not anonymous users purportedly acting on behalf of the subject] complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, [are we saying Lipscomb is borderline notable?] err on the side of caution and simply list the year." (comments, emphasis mine). That's as far as I think we should go if pushed. -- NeilN talk to me 23:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps as a librarian I can explain the source of the LC data in question: The information is the LIbrary of Congress authority file, the primary repository of publicly known basic data about individuals who have written books. It is used universally for all library cataloging in the United States and, for US authors, internationally by way of the international VIAF file. It is used a as a source in many WP articles--I use it to help select the authoritative name and to add the birthdate for all articles on authors which do not have the information. The information is added normally at the time the first book by the author is cataloged, and the information is usually taken from the book itself, or information supplied by the author or publisher. In this case it was taken from the title page and publisher's dust jacket of the book mentioned, and from her doctoral thesis. Since the information comes from sources affiliated with the author, it is not absolutely authoritative, for she and her publisher can use what name they choose, and provide or not provide the year and date of birth(though in a PhD thesis it is usual to give the full legal name) In the past, the information also came from a search of reliable outside reference sources, but for over the last 20 years at least, the information is taken just as it is supplied. I do not consider it a "public record" in the usual sense; I consider it just a reliable secondary source for the author's public statement in her published works. In general, I think we would be remiss in not using it. Actors and other public performers and presenters are notorious (and I pick that word deliberately) for trying to conceal their actual birthdate. WP is an encyclopedia, not a press release. The performer is in control of their PR, but we need pay no attention to it. PR is what the subject wants to tell the public; an encyclopedia gives what the public may want to know. For a private figure I would not necessarily include the actual day; for a child I never would; for a person whose notability come from their own public performances (in this case, as well as writing), I consider it essential. I'm guessing here: when she wrote her thesis, and when she published her book, she did not then envision herself as a public figure,and gave the information as matter of course just as you or I might do. She may later have wished to do otherwise, We're a reference work, and should stick to the record. TheEC may want electronic information changed back and forth as it suits the individual--there are situations where this may be appropriate, but public figures are not want of them. I consider an adult who chooses to appear in a feature on television a public figure. If the EU thinks otherwise, it's carrying on the totalitarian pattern of some European countries who thought they needed to control and revise what is known by the populace. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the Library of Congress counts as a secondary source here. It sounds like the Library of Congress indiscriminately collates this information from all published books. If so, then it doesn't contain "interpretation, analysis, or evaluation" of the information. That's like claiming that a phone book is a secondary source for someone's address because each address in the phone book is copied from somewhere. Furthermore, the spirit of the rule is that secondary sources are required for such information because we should only be publishing information that other people consider to be important. Getting information that is published by one or two sources, even if they are technically secondary, but which is ignored by the vast majority of sources, violates the spirit of the rule. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Possible compromiseUse "Suzannah Lipscomb, born 1978" in the opening sentence and infobox, and cite it to the Library of Congress record. Not giving the middle names or date of birth within the article does not lead to a significant loss of context, and there are indications that the subject of the article has objected on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds. This is not the first article where the subject has objected to the full name and date of birth. If they have not been widely disseminated in secondary sources, the policy is to err on the side of caution and respect the subject's wishes.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Identity theftQuery to those editors mentioning identity theft. Are you supporting the removal of birth dates from all less well-known BLPs? Because we have a lot of them... -- NeilN talk to me 12:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Voceditenore I was very surprised to read your rather rude reference to me and another editor on the Suzannah Lipscomb page "increasingly disruptive attempts by her family and acquaintances to micro-manage this article". You talk about a Jimmy Wales, somebody I have never even heard of. Sorry, I think you are attacking the wrong person. I have never mentioned identity theft, just the fact that one uses ones date of birth increasingly for security. Is that too difficult for you to understand? I have to say that professionally I have rarely come across such a rude, self-important bunch of nobodies. I have no idea who the other editor you are insulting is, but seeing as you have made it perfectly clear that even asking for something on the talk page by a COI results in insults, I won't bother mentioning anything again. What is more I will treat all the negative things I read on other people's Wiki sites with the contempt they deserve, because you lot don't have a clue what you are doing and for some reason or other only like to write negative things about people.-- MdeBohun ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
Must all her Christian names be mentioned? I see that they are now in the prose as it's been suggested that if they are in the 'silly' box they should be in prose too, but she has never been known by these names. MdeBohun ( talk) 14:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
MarkBernstein Thank you for explaining that, understood. MdeBohun ( talk) 21:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
stop messin about with her name
this is a primary source
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2010030157.html
wikia is now insisting on publishing personal details about this person that have never been reported elsewhere
Mosfetfaser ( talk) 18:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Have just restored this again since it was removed a short while ago without apparent consensus to do that, and with the argument that LOC is a primary source. If there is a good and valid reason for removing this sourced information then let's hear it. This is Paul ( talk) 18:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
After having just added some details to an edit-warring warning on an editor's talk page (see User_talk:Mosfetfaser#May_2014_3, I noticed the edits in question add a date of birth based on a Primary source. However, WP:BLPPRIMARY says not to do that:
Apologies to User:Mosfetfaser. I believe you are correct to have removed that information (but you are not correct to edit war to do so). JoeSperrazza ( talk) 18:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's not go overboard. First, the LOC information is probably, in effect, a secondary source. Second, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia for innocuous and uncontroversial data -- and a historians birth date seems precisely the sort of thing where this policy makes sense. Finally, do we have any reason to doubt the birth date? To think it might be controversial or damaging? Is this dispute merely for the sake of disputation? If not, what is the issue? MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit [27] was really uncool. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact - it appears that someone logged out to revert to their favorite version:
JoeSperrazza ( talk) 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Note that it's not just the Library of Congress authority record which uses her full names: if you Google the long form of her name there are several company directorship databases such as this one which show her name and, in this case, date of birth minus day of month. Pam D 21:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
May I suggest that as her title when at the University of East Anglia was shown as 'Lecturer in history', that her current title of 'Convenor for History and Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History' at the New College of the Humanities also be stated, rather than just the bland 'a member of the faculty'.
Thanks very much. MdeBohun ( talk) 16:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)