Jump to content

Talk:Antonia Juhasz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion in Talk:BP

[edit]

I just wanted to bring to the attention of editors of this article that there is a discussion of this article, in particular the description of Ms. Juhasz as an "analyst," in the talk page of the BP article at [1]. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on that talk page by "Arturo at BP" evidently are the proximate cause of tags added recently in this article [2], and in fairness I think the editors here need to be aware of that discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References needed

[edit]

Per WP:BLP, all information about living person have to be verifiable and based on reliable sources. A large part of the current version has been written by Antonia Juhasz (talk · contribs) and contains no references. Notwithstanding the WP:COI (or particularly because of that), the article needs addition references to verify the accuracy of the text. Beagel (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This tag-bombing is disruptive and unnecessary. This is noncontroversial information on the writer, and there is already a tag at the top of the page indicating that more references are needed. WP:BLPSOURCES says "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." However, you placed "citation needed" tags on routine biographical information, and not on anything controversial and likely to be challenged.
In fact, all the tagging is actually is problematic from a BLP perspective, as it casts doubt on this person's credentials and thus is harmful to her reputation.
Moreover, since it was sparked by a corporate rep on the BP talk page[3], a possible Amanda Filipacchi situation could be sparked by your unnecessary edits. No, worse than that because in the Filipacchi situation, her article was tag-bombed by editors upset with her NY Times op-ed. But here we have a situation where an editor was moved to come to this page, for tag-bombing purposes, after being inspired by a post by a BP rep. I would strongly suggest that you desist from this kind of behavior, and certainly not edit-war over it, as it is disruptive and potentially harmful to the already not great reputation of the project in this general area.
Given the background to this edit, and the fact that it was inspired by a post on Wikipedia from an employee of a corporation that is involved in a real-life dispute with the subject of this article, BP, I would urge editors who came here because of the BP rep's post to leave this article alone and weigh carefully the implications of editing as the result of a talk page post by a corporate official representing the position of that company. Coretheapple (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All information should be sourced. As this information was added by the subject of this article, it is particularly important that it is supported by reliable sources. Who mentioned first the problem is not relevant in this context as WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS as core policies should be followed. All these claims need references, so removing citation requests without fixing the problem is not appropriate. Beagel (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although clearly in the wrong since Wikipedia does very strongly discourage writing one's own biography, there is absolutely no reason for this display of mean-spiritness by a Wikipedia editor. A tag has been placed in the article and a note has been entered on the talk page--anything more than that only promotes anger and frustration for new editors that are not aware of Wikipedia policies. As a Wikipedia editor I consider this my place of work. I would not work for a company that allowed workers to go out of their way to be uncivil to newcomers. Hopefully Antonia will respond within a few days and we can go from there. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beagel is also wrong about everything needed to be sourced. This is noncontroversial biographical information, not puffery or wild claims. I pointed that out to him, chapter and verse, yet he continued to engage in such disruptive tagging. If that's not tendentious editing, I don't know what is. Coretheapple (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the text was added by the subject herself, providing reliable sources should be the easiest way for vetting the text. The template's documentation says: "The {{Citation needed}} template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided." I have explained why references should be provided so removing citation requests without addressing the issue is non-constructive way to improve Wikipeadia. I also ask Coretheapple to remove his comment about fellow editor. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep clinging to such a fallacious position? Whether or not added by the subject of the article, lists of credits (which are what you kept tagging) are inherently noncontroversial, and thus are specifically exempted as to the kind of text that requires tagging. If they were even awards I could understand, but your position is completely contrary to Wiki requirements. Moreover, questioning the veracity of such routine information is disruptive and inappropriate for a BLP. But there is a wider and overarching issue here: We are all here because of completely unnecessary, gratuitous reference to this article by an employee of BP in Talk:BP. We need to bend over backwards not to allow corporations from influencing BLPs of their critics in this manner. The BP rep knew perfectly well that this person is widely referred to as an "analyst" in the media. To question that by raising the issue of this BLP is in my view yet another reason why corporate reps should stay the hell off of talk pages unless they have a specific error they want to correct. Attempting to spin their articles, and draw attention to Wiki articles on their critics, may fall within the bounds of Wiki rules, which to me is the reason why Wiki rules are so grossly insufficient. Frankly I doubt that, as this entire disruption and drama is ultimately the fault of the BP rep's gratuitous reference to Ms. Juhasz's Wiki article. While I don't countenance autobiographies, this is not the way we should be treating people, as Gandy points out. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why you continues to bring up BP if the issue is about WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS? Lets discuss this article and not BP. Concerning your comment, do you say that being on the national advisory committee of Iraq Veterans Against the War, being Investigative Journalism Fellow at the Investigative Reporting Program (a working newsroom) at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, or working as a legislative assistant for two U.S. members of Congress, is just "routine information" information? Really? Where is said that that kind of information should be not sourced? Documentation of this template explicitly said about usage that "when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided". Once more, I believe that that kind of statements should be verified as this is not trivia. Beagel (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as I have explained umpteen times, there is a tag at the top of the article saying that more references are needed for verification. Because, as I have explained umpteen times, placing a "citation needed" tag at the end of paragraphs of routine information is disruptive. BP is pertinent because that's why you came here, and if it wasn't for BP, and its statements on the BP talk page via its employee, we wouldn't be having this discussion and you know that perfectly well. I struck out my "tendentious" comment above but I am tempted to un-strike it out, as your consistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is indeed tendentious. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Antonia Juhasz. Beagel (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connected contributors

[edit]

There is a User:Antonia Juhasz who evidently has a connection to the article subject. But two other names have been added to the list at the top of this page on the basis of contributions, and I don't think that's appropriate for us to do that just on the basis of contributions and becuase "Antonia" is part of one name. I know it looks suspicious, but WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles, so let's observe it, please, and show some restraint on this point. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles to be added to "Writing" and "Articles" Sections

[edit]
Request to add resume stuff collapsed

--Antonia Juhasz (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)I'd like the following articles to be added to both the "Writing" section and "Articles" section of the Antonia Juhasz Article page. "Journalism" should appear before "Reports." I was instructed not to add these myself. I did not start the Antonia Juhasz article page. I do not know who did. But it has been managed in a way that I find very confusing, inaccurate, and not a correct or comprehensive representation of my work. All of my writing specifically related to energy can be found here: http://antoniajuhasz.net/section.php?id=47. Virtually all of my writing is found here:http://antoniajuhasz.net/section.php?id=10. Many many of my articles are missing from the Article page, but these below are just some of the more recent and important.[reply]

"When They Set the Sea on Fire," by Antonia Juhasz, in the book, "Unfathomable City: A New Orleans Atlas," Rebecca Solnit and Rebecca Snedeker, editors. [4]

“Why Oil Drilling in Ecuador is 'Ticking Time Bomb' For Planet,” by Antonia Juhasz, CNN.com February 28th, 2014 [5]

“What’s Wrong with Exxon?” by Antonia Juhasz, October/November cover article for The Advocate magazine, Nominated for a GLAAD 2013 Media Award for Outstanding Magazine Article. [6]

“Big Oil’s Big Lies About Alternatives,” by Antonia Juhasz, Rolling Stone, June 25, 2013 [7]

"Light, Sweet, Crude: A former US ambassador peddles influence in Afghanistan." by Antonia Juhasz, Harper's Magazine April 22nd, 2013 [8]

"Chevron's Refinery, Richmond's Peril." by Antonia Juhasz, Los Angeles Times, August 14th, 2012 [9]

"BP vs. Gulf Coast: It's Not Settled Yet," by Antonia Juhasz, The Nation, March 6th, 2012 [10]

"BP Oil Still Tars the Gulf," By Antonia Juhasz, April 2012 issue, Cover article, The Progressive [11]

"Two Year's Later: BP's Toxic Legacy," May 2012 cover article, The Nation [12]

"Afghanistan's Energy War," by Antonia Juhasz & Shukria Dellawar, October 5th, 2011, Foreign Policy in Focus [13]

"The Crude Truth About Iraq," Antonia Juhasz, September 14, 2011, Washington Post [14]

"Voices from the Gulf Oil Disaster," Antonia Juhasz, April 21, 2011, Huffington Post [15]

"Questions for BP and the Oil Industry," Antonia Juhasz, April 15, 2011, Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University [16]

"Women Clean Up After BP," Antonia Juhasz, August 1, 2010, Ms. Magazine. [17]

"How far should we let Big Oil go?" by Antonia Juhasz, The Guardian of London May 24th, 2010 [18]

"Chevron Owes More to Richmond and California," Antonia Juhasz, July 17, 2009, The San Francisco Chronicle. [19]

"Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?" by Antonia Juhasz, New York Times, March 13th, 2007 [20]

~~Antonia Juhasz

I think including all that material here is highly inappropriate. Save it for your personal website. This is an encyclopedia and not here to promote you and your career. This article should not read like your resume. The Dissident Aggressor 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abject personal promotion

[edit]

This article read like a personal brochure for the subject of the article. WP:NOTRESUME is only the beginning of the problems. It's clear that the COI editing has become a major problem here and needs to stop. WP:NPOV is not optional. The Dissident Aggressor 20:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from my post above from 2013, I was not enamored by the connected contributors in this article. However, your severe (perhaps over-severe) editing has reduced that the POV problem, so I really don't think your tags, or at least all of them, are warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? The Dissident Aggressor 20:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, in other articles (Wikipediocracy comes to mind) I've noticed a practice of removing connected contributor tags when the connected contributor hasn't edited in a while. There's a discussion on the talk page on that very point, though mind you that article is veritably chock full of connected contributors regardless. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Antonia Juhasz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Antonia Juhasz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antonia Juhasz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antonia_Juhasz&oldid=1207875129"