Talk:Barbara Plett Usher

Drive by tagging

Please don't deface articles with drive by tagging. If you want to improve the article hand have specific concerns, make them on this page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Plett is a journalist with years of experience. I know it excites a small number of people that she expressed emotion once a few years ago, and maybe that was unprofessional, but there is no call for it to dominate a whole article about her. Until this article carries more detail about her and her career, the unbalanced tag is wholly appropriate. They exist, and are there for editors to use, for a reason. There is way too much of this on WP. Please go and start an "I hate Barbara Plett/Robert Fisk/Chris McGreal/Ed O'Loughlin/fill gap as appropriate" blog if you wish to. --Nickhh (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What details about her career are missing, in your opinion? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that much about her career, primarily because the article tells me very little about it or her, focusing instead on a very trivial one-off overblown "controversy". That's kind of the problem, of course. I'll see what I can look up when I get time, as hopefully will others. --Nickhh (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be consider it to be "trivial", but it led to hundreds of complaints to the BBC, and a formal investigative process within the BBC, as a result of which those complaints were partially upheld. It would be great if suitable information about other aspects of her career could be added, but I'm not aware of any Wikipedia principle which requires sourced information about a notable incident to be arbitrarily trimmed down in order to fit some fixed predetermined mathematical ratio between the length of text about controversies vs. the length of text about non-controversial stuff. AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

100s of 1000s of people did not complain. These kinds of campaigns always get whipped up among a relatively small number of outraged obsessives, especially when it comes to the media and Israel/Palestine. In the grand scheme of things they are trivial, albeit worth noting. And indeed the complaints - about one brief comment in a programme which specifically bills itself as involving "personal reflections" from BBC correspondents - were only partially upheld, in any event. Btw I never asked for any "arbitrary trimming down" of the Arafat material (although it could use a re-write), nor did I talk about "mathematical ratios". All I said was that more content in other areas needed to be added to make it balanced. And I would have thought it fairly obvious that WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV have some bearing when it comes to creating broadly balanced pages, if those are the principles you are groping for. --Nickhh (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's nice -- tens thousands of airplanes don't ditch into the Hudson river, but when one does, then we write an article about it. And I fail to see how policies UNDUE and NPOV specifically and concretely apply to this article (if they do, then you certainly haven't demonstrated how they do so in any very useful way so far). If ideally material should be added about other aspects of her career, that isn't the same as there being a problem with the text which is there already. The one policy which could in fact clearly apply is WP:COATRACK -- that is, if the only reason this article even exists is to discuss the controversy (but you haven't shown that either). AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy appears a little confused, as if my point had been that 10s (or 100s) of 1000s of programmes pass without complaint, and this one then received some (and quite how useful any analogy between a politically driven whinge-fest about one sentence by one journalist and something as real-world and dramatic as a plane crash would be anyway is kind of lost on me). But that quite clearly wasn't my point of course. Also I was quite clear that I thought the article needs more information on other issues, and, separately, that it needs a rewrite of the Arafat stuff itself. I never made a causal connection between the two or said they were "the same" issue, as you seem to be suggesting I did. That's the second time you've misrepresented what I've said now. And finally, I'm not sure I need to explain via some kind of specific, detailed legal submission how WP:UNDUE (and WP:NPOV more broadly) might have "some bearing" on an issue of balance in an article. But you're right about COATRACK, as I noted in a discussion on my talk page about this and other pages. Oh and there's WP:BLP as well while we're at it.

Now if anyone has any suggestions for how and where this article might be expanded, any good sources etc, perhaps we can move on to that? Cheers. --Nickhh (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

you are the one who tagged the article, what are your suggestions? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I second Canadian Monkey -- the Arafat tears incident is clearly notable, and is properly sourced in the article, so it's really up to you (as the one objecting) to come up with constructive specific suggestions as to how your objections can be satisfied. AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I tagged this article because it is quite obviously unbalanced, and needs more details about her overall journalism as opposed to a single controversy. I am no expert on her career, so, having made the general observation, asked for ideas from others about the details of that career, and for any suggestions as to what relevant sources might be worth looking at in that regard. That was a pretty genuine question, and I do not quite understand why it is now being thrown back at me. Maybe outside eyes might help here. Nor, for the third (?) time, have I denied that the Arafat excitement has a certain (limited) notability to it. I'm just saying that there is more to this journalist than that.--Nickhh (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

if it 'obviously unbalanced' you should have no problems providing the "obviously" missing balance. What is it? Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Grow up, use to learn verbs and go away. We are going round in circles here, you are simply repeating a question which I have already answered. What I said, and my acknowledgement of my relative ignorance, was quite clear to anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind in respect of this individual. Again, can anyone help at all here (in a constructive way). And can you please stop following me? --Nickhh (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your general approach here seems to have some flavor of "imperiously demanding the kindness of strangers" -- requiring that others do the work of fixing alleged problems, when you have no real concrete constructive suggestions to offer other than the most vague and general. AnonMoos (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well no, I am pointing out (again) that this article as currently drafted has virtually nothing on her career as a journalist, and massive detail about one minor controversy. The not-at-all vague suggestion is - let's add more material about that career. One can of course be pretty certain that she has done some things in the world of journalism, without yet knowing exactly what they are. And of course that is exactly how this place works - by co-operation and collaborative editing, between people who are indeed strangers to each other yet are all contributing something by identifying problems with articles and then working to develop and improve them. No one person is obliged to do everything themselves and to do it immediately, although I'm sure I will get round to looking for more material on her broader career myself. Circular and theoretical debates on the talk page aren't making that any easier to do. In the meantime it is hardly being "imperious" to hope that someone might drop by and say "oh, I read a very interesting profile about her in Magazine X the other week, here's a link to the online version". Naively optimistic perhaps, but that's another matter, and you never know. --Nickhh (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a misunderstanding of what WP:UNDUE requires. You seem to think that it means that if something negative is included in an article, it must be "balanced" by adding positive content. But that is not the case. WP:UNDUE requires that if there are different points of view regarding a topic, they all be presented, giving proportional weight to the prevalence of the different views. If Plett did nothing notable in her career as a journalist, there is nothing to add. You don't seem to know of anything notable about her, other than the Arafat incident. I don't know anything notable about here, either. You are certain that she did some other notable things, but I am not so certain. So we are perfectly withing the requirements of WP:UNDUE to note the Arafat incident, and that's it, unless you produce some other notable material. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand exactly what WP:UNDUE means and understand as well where false balance leads to (eg "Mussolini was a racist and a fascist, but he brought a sense of national pride back to Italy and made the trains run on time" etc etc.) What WP:UNDUE does require is that articles are not given over to minority viewpoints favoured by one or two loud voices or politically motivated campaigns, or to dumps of marginally relevant information kindly donated by one or two editors. I never denied that the Arafat incident has a certain (albeit limited) notability; however if there is genuinely nothing else even vaguely notable about Plett as a journalist - which may well be the case, nor is she a high-profile or "controversial" polemicist or campaigning journalist a la Bill O'Reilly or John Pilger - then this page should not exist at all, and certainly not simply stand here under her name as a way of highlighting a marginal partisan uproar from four years ago. Conversely if she is deemed to be a notable journalist, this page should elaborate neutrally on her career and note this event as a minor flash-in-the-pan moment within it. Sorry I am really now not going to add any more to this circular debate about what one would have thought were the obvious principles involved in writing a neutral, fair and objective encyclopedia, especially within the context of WP:BLP. --Nickhh (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

my, my, how quickly we switch gears from "One can of course be pretty certain that she has done some things in the world of journalism" to "there is genuinely nothing else even vaguely notable about Plett as a journalist - which may well be the case". feel free to take this article to AfD if there is nothing else notable about Plett as a journalist. It may be that the Araft incident is not sufficient for her to have an article of her own. But as long as the article is here, don't deface it with tags as "unbalanced" if you can't show what other notable things she has done. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, there's no contradiction, especially when you include the "if" that you elided from my words, presumably in error. She has of course "done things". Currently her reports air regularly on the BBC. What is at issue is whether all that makes her notable as a journalist, per WP guidelines. It's hardly a shocking admission on my part to raise that possibility. I have had a look around online and agree her career is not overflowing with awards, or acknowledgements of her special contribution in a particular field. I have as it happens considered taking it to AfD, but am not sure that would be the right thing - in my view she is notable enough for a stub outlining her career in more detail (where she's worked, for whom etc, as with loads of other journalists here), with a brief note about the Arafat controversy included. As opposed to it taking up 80% of the page. Again, I may be able to work on improving the balance when I can get off these talk pages. --Nickhh (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

She is a TV reporter. Reporting regularly on the BBC is her job, and there's nothing notable or encyclopedic about it. The fact that she is a BBC correspondent is already mentioned in the article, in detail. As I said, if you think she is not a notable journalist - take this article to AfD. But if you are not taking this to AfD, and can't point to anything notable about her other than what is already in the article, then you need to remove that tag. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

2011

This article is self-evidently nothing other than pure coatracking of the most blatant kind. For experienced Wikipedia contributors to argue otherwise is frankly ridiculous, and insults the intelligence of our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion above was almost entirely about "UNDUE" and "WP:NPOV", and not about "Coatrack" (only mentioned fleetingly in passing). Maybe you should develop your reading comprehension skills further before loosely tossing around indiscriminate allegations in random directions... AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"not about coatrack" is based on an assumption: that AndyTheGrump was dittoing what others had said. Had you the opportunity to see his work elsewhere, I think you would understand what you already should have assumed (WP:AGF); that is not his operating standard. I am in agreement with the substance of his 'allegations'. A comparison of this talk page to the article is evidence that some WP editors would rather fight than work, and diversion of attention from content to balance on this article has has led to an AFD that should never have happened. Anarchangel (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's extremely difficult to place any other construction on AndyTheGrump's remarks besides being an insinuation that CanadianMonkey and myself are assholes who are not worthy to edit Wikipedia -- based on AndyTheGrump's personal misconceptions and misunderstandings of the previous discussions above. His "intervention" notably failed to clarify any issues or lead to any constructive discussions about improving the article. Wonder why that is?? AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and AfD this. It's not clear to me that she meets the general notability standard, and I cannot easily find evidence that makes it look like she does. My understanding is that in general wikipedia's policy is that individuals who are noted only for specific controversies should not have independent articles about themselves. It's also policy (as discussed in coatrack) that articles should not exist primarily to disparage their subjects (which I find especially relevant since this is a BLP.) Under the circumstances I'm pretty sure that if the controversy is worth discussing somewhere it belongs on Criticism of the BBC or a similar page instead of a stand-alone bio. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It already is on "Criticism of the BBC" (though much more briefly). AnonMoos (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Usher

The BBC always refers to the subject as Barbara Plett Usher, why doesn't Wikipedia? 86.144.179.132 (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Description of Yasser Arafat

The description of "Nobel laureate, embezzler and terrorist" is hardly NPOV. Many political leaders have been guilty of corruption, but it's not their defining characteristic, and the question of who is and isn't a terrorist is well discussed. I don't know enough about this subject to make a better edit, but I hope someone will. Julian (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Usher, again

Barbara Plett Usher refers to herself as thus at the end of all her BBC reports. I can find no evidence of her using the name 'Barbara Plett' herself - only Wikipedia seem to refer to her thus. I suggest we make this change, as it seems hardly controversial to refer to a living person by their preferred, correct name. If there's no objections to this, I'll make the change in the next week. Fortnum (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Fortnum, it seems "next week" has passed us by, somewhat? But I wholly agree. She is called Barbara Plett Usher by her employer the BBC. See also, for example, her Facebook page here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: done now, plus a page move. Slightly more than a week, but less than previously. Thanks again for reminding me of this. Fortnum (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The article says she became the BBC's State Department Correspondent only last year, in 2021, and implies she was their UN correspondent before then. Actually she's been covering general Washington politics (both presidential, senate and state department) for several years, since at least 2014 I think. She's one of their veteran Washington people (and a very good reporter btw). IMHO the Beeb often doesn't place very strict boundaries on titles like "state department correspondent", "New York business correspondent" etc. 188.150.64.57 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)