Jump to content

Talk:Diane Francis

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

Fair use rationale for Image:DianeFrancisbookcover.jpg

[edit]

Image:DianeFrancisbookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's immediate family.

[edit]

It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the subject's immediate family. Please stop removing this info. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

The sources for this article are atrocious: self-published website and blog. Is this indiviudal really notable with reliable third-party sources available? If not, we need an AfD ASAP. Grsz11 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what little info we have on her, I think the article would meet WP:BIO if we had independent sources on her awards and accomplishments. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a chapter in North to Canada: Men and Women Against the Vietnam War ISBN 0275962113 with details on her emigration from the US to Canada (her husband dodged the draft) and the early parts of her career. Her journalism career is also mentioned in Staying Canadian ISBN 0919688314 with regards to the Quebec Equality Party, and one of her books is used as a source for Richer or Poorer ISBN 1550286102. We need WP:BETTER not deletionism. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Climate Change

[edit]

Other views have been presented in this article, and yet this particular one is removed, despite being adequately sourced and relevant to a BLP. I've undone the removal. If there is a good reason why her stated views are irrelevant I'm interested in hearing it. Wbehun (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was born in 1946. Article was written in 2009. Global warming didn't become a big issue til about 1989 at the earliest. Are you suggesting that she has to kill one of her adult children to express a view on what's best for the planet? You claim to be a lecturer on philosophy - explain this one to me. (And per WP:BLP, do not reinsert the text without discussion concluding.) Rd232 talk 07:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My credentials are easily established, although irrelevant here. I currently teach Philosophy for the World Campus at Penn State University and also at St. Xavier University in Chicago. Feel free to phone either department to confirm this. At no point did I state or imply that anyone ought to be killing anyone. This suggestion came only from you. She is welcome, of course, to express her views. Those views are part of her biography, and as such belong in the entry. You removed the entire passage pertaining to that view without comment, rather than attempting to engage in rational discourse on the subject which may well have lead to a consensus. Wbehun (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that she ought to kill one of her children dates to an anonymous editor in December; it was swiftly removed. I merely echoed it because it highlights the alleged problem (policy v practice). I mentioned your position because I felt you ought to see more clearly than most that an implication of hypocrisy arises from placing the "One child policy" view next to "she has 2 children", and that this implication is unwarranted. It is this implication which creates the WP:BLP violation. Mere inclusion of the One Child Policy view is more debatable; it was included for some months until March (see Backstory section below for the chronology). Subsequently it has been removed by multiple editors, and the justification is that picking this one view is cherry-picking, which is impermissible under a number of policies, such as WP:UNDUE (give due weight to all aspects of a subject's life and work) and WP:PSTS (don't rely on primary sources because it is secondary source coverage which establishes significance such that content be included). But as the history demonstrates, consensus can change, and in the current debate it may change again. It would be much preferable if people would wait for discussion to reach something resembling a conclusion before editing, but patience is a rare virtue in Wikipedia editors. Rd232 talk 09:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RD232's rant not withstanding, there doesn't appear to be any policy based objection to the well sourced content. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:NPOV. Her children were undoubtedly conceived some time before climate change became a public issue, and certainly long before the article was written saying the planet would be better off with 1 child per couple. It is unreasonable to effectively accuse a journalist of hypocrisy in the circumstances described - Ethics 101: EPIC FAIL. Rd232 talk 13:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rd232 had blocked Freakshownerd while edit warring over this issue, and I have strongly encouraged him to reverse his block and continue discussion on this talk page. The content should be included in this BLP -- this is a particularly notable view of this BLP, and it can be very well sourced to her own words in the Fox News interview and even better in her own column: The real inconvenient truth where she states:

A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.

The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.

She is an extremist with extremist views, at least on this topic. She owns these views, has written a column about it, given interviews about her views. There is absolutely no reason to keep this information out of her BLP and every reason to include it. However, she is clearly talking about going forward and not killing extra children that are already born. It is unnecessary and harmful to note in the context of this discussion that she has two children -- that is irrelevant to her views about what should be done in the future. Minor4th 19:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The clear BLP violation was including the view along with the comment about her having 2 children. Whether the view alone is worth including is more debatable (cherrypicking journalists' views is a perennial Wikipedia problem), but in view of the circumstances I don't wish to debate it myself - please go to WP:BLPN for input. Thanks. Rd232 talk 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should of course note that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages, so please refrain from labelling BLP subjects "extremist" unnecessarily. The issue can be perfectly well discussed without that. Rd232 talk 19:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, please remove the claim that I was "edit warring" - I was enforcing BLP policy. By longstanding agreement the text Freakshownerd was edit warring to reinsert was a BLP violation. In addition, I believe that Freakshownerd is likely a sockpuppet of a banned user, which factored into my decision to block. Rd232 talk 19:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were edit warring. Your last revert of Freakshow had no BLP implications at all. Freakshow had not inserted this bit about the one child policy, but you reverted nonetheless. You should unblock him and wait for consensus on this one child issue, whether that takes place here or on BLPN. That is the sum of my participation in this article if you unblock Freakshownerd to allow his participation. The fact that it is a discussion at BLPN is reason enough to unblock him to allow him to participate in an issue that is clearly not settled and is not such a blatant BLP violation as you're insisting -- if it were so blatant there would be no discussion at BLPN and no contrary position to be taken. If you will no unblock him, I feel somewhat obligated to remain in the discussion so that the view opposed to yours is adequately represented. Minor4th 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if you want to denounce me as a Rouge Admin at WP:ANI then go do that. Beyond that, the block is for 24 hours, and the sky will not fall if Freakshownerd turns out not be a sock and resumes editing only tomorrow rather than right now. Also, there is no current BLPN discussion - I'm inviting you to start one, if you wish to pursue the content issue immediately. (Patience is such a lacking virtue in Wikipedia editors.) Rd232 talk 19:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The irony ..... Minor4th 20:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...would be where? BLP violations must be removed immediately. Useful text which turns out not to be a violation can be reinserted at leisure, after sufficient discussion. Rd232 talk 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I remember, we've had this discussion before. That is not how BLP policy works. You can remove controversial BLP info that is unsourced or poorly sourced, which was not the case here. There's no question that it is her view and that she stated it in interviews and in her own column. You are not challenging the information or its accuracy -- you just don't want that particular content in the article. That is not a BLP issue, that's a straight up content dispute and consensus here is against you. It doesn't belong on BLPN because there's no BLP issue. Please quit telling other editors not to edit and by all means stop using your admin tools to win content disputes. Minor4th 20:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, and I'm tired of repeating myself. Rd232 talk 20:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...using an opinion piece as a source on a third-party seems to be problematic to me. But I'm not sure why the entire sentence was removed and not just the offending phrase. May I suggest the following:

Francis has said that the biggest issue in the climate change debate is overpopulation and has advocated a "planetary law, such as China's one-child policy".[1][2]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK -- it's not a third party opinion piece, it is a column that she herself wrote, and it was also sourced with her own words from an interview on Fox. Having said that, I think your proposed edit is fine and captures the essence of her views. Minor4th 20:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions of this type have cited WP:PSTS in terms of the need not to cherrypick journalists' views of interest to individual editors. Please do take this WP:BLPN before editing. Rd232 talk 20:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rd232: Personally, I dislike using primary sources for contentious or controversial content, but current Wikipedia policy allows it. In fact, we do it all over Wikipedia. In any case, do you have a specific BLP objection to my suggested wording? If so, what is the specific objection? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
cherry-picking would be the concern - hence my reference to WP:PSTS. But in the absence of anybody respecting my request to go to BLPN, I'm going to go and start a thread there myself. Rd232 talk 20:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rd232: You're entitled to your opinion but cherry-picking isn't a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Perhaps you meant WP:UNDUE? Even still, given that this is a single sentence, I find such an argument to be severely lacking. Of course, if the article were to turn into a WP:COATRACK to promote her views, that would be one thing. But as it stands, a single sentence is hardly undue weight. Do you have a specific policy-based BLP objection to this content? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the new WP:BLPN thread. A combination of NPOV (WP:UNDUE) and PSTS would be the policy, and "cherry-picking" sums up the concern. Rd232 talk 20:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)I was referring to the third source cited[1] which is an opinion piece written by Lysiane Gagnon. But wait a second, which source was being used for the "although she has two children" phrase? I don't see it in any of the three sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the two children should be cited in the same section as the one child policy. Minor4th 20:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a source can be found for her two children, it should be in a different section of the article. I believe that my suggested wording fixes the BLP issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good compromise to me. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 21:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more sources commenting on this issue:

[PA redacted Rd232 talk 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)] The controversy over her position on this issue is by the best referenced most sourced aspect of the whole article, much of which is advertorial. The last edit I made had nothing to do with this dispute and attempted to fix some of the flowery propagandistic language used in the article that is sourced only to her personal webpage and corporate bio. [PA redacted Rd232 talk 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)] Freakshownerd (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to call consensus on this issue and add the content that is being discussed if it has not already been added. There are now 5 editors in favor of it and one opposed with no sound policy rationale for leaving out the material that is not contentious. Minor4th 21:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which version are you intending to add? I do oppose the original one but support the wording AQFK suggested above. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 21:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the one that AQFK proposed. Minor4th 21:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm so glad we've had all of several hours' discussion before you did that. [2] - especially considering that precisely this content was removed in an OTRS ticket in March [3] and has not stayed in the article since. Rd232 talk 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rd232: I'm not familiar with this OTRS ticket, but if it involved the claim that a single sentence rendered an entire article a WP:COATRACK, then something appears to have gone wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the OTRS ticket. The edit summary says "rmv'd coatrack statement". Rd232 talk 23:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as stated before, a single statement does not a coatrack make. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as also stated before, the term is sometimes used quite loosely. It still has a recognisable meaning when applied to a single statement, albeit not a correct usage. Rd232 talk 00:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly makes this comment notable? She does not appear to have campaigned on this issue, as far as I can tell from the backstory, nor has it been the subject of a significant controversy - other than apparently being highlighted in an opinion piece by a political opponent. In what way is this not a case of out-of-context cherry-picking? It's very clear from the comments of some editors here ("propagandizing his left wing viewpoints") that they have explicitly political motives in pushing this content. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be remembered that the editor who inserted it originally in December 2009 was explicitly trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for this meme. [4] Rd232 talk 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does he control Diane Francis and did he make her give an interview to a major new network about the issue? Criticisms of her view haven't even been included, so the "this is a blp violation" nonsense needs to stop. It's her view that has been reported and and commented on by various notable figures and it's far and away the best sourced bit in the whole article. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If sourcing (in the sense of WP:V verifiability) were the only factor, we could delete WP:BLP policy as redundant. Rd232 talk 02:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backstory

[edit]

Previous removals of the content in question:

December 2009

  1. User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper [5] and again for reinsertion of "2 children" as vandalism [6]
  2. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen [7]
  3. WMC [8] and rvv "2 children" [9]
  4. User:PhGustaf [10] and again for reinsertion of "despite 2 children" [11] as vandalism x2 [12]
  • consensus end December: keep "one child policy" view without "2 children" in proximity.

March 2009

  1. OTRS ticket removes it entirely [13]

July 2009;;

  1. Rd232 first removal July 2010 [14]

August 2009

  1. User:Prolog [15] several times, adding semi-protection against sock-puppetry
  2. User:Steven J. Anderson [16]
  3. 21/22 Aug - Rd232 removing 2x from Wbehun and several more times from Freakshownerd

Rd232 talk 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • ChrisO reverted out the sourced content citing "obvious BLP violation" - clearly against consensus and contrary to policy. "cherry-picking" is not part of the BLP policy. I've reverted him and restored the sourced, uncontentious sentence. Please do not engage in further reverts unless consensus is gained. If you want more of her views in the article, improve the article and add content. Minor4th 01:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that even after clear evidence that the issue is contentious and a WP:BLPN discussion underway besides discussion here, all currently somewhat afflicted by the Freakshownerd block drama, you choose to reinsert the text immediately. You've repeatedly lectured me about BLP policy but you seem to fail to grasp the very basic spirit of it, which is caution, which is to say, not insisting on controversial content being present in the article whilst it is under active discussion about whether it merits inclusion (especially when there was a previous consensus against, as the Backstory above clearly shows). If we took BLP policy seriously, such behaviour would be blockable. (Don't worry, we don't.) Rd232 talk 02:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Financial Post, The real inconvenient truth
  2. ^ Columnist Proposes One-Child Policy to Battle Climate Change December 14, 2009 Interview Fox News

Edit warring

[edit]
Collapse unhelpful discussion primarily with sock of banned user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Can we also get a review of my last edit (which was reverted by Rd232 in his 9th or 10th revert) and see what editors think of my removal of weasel words, advertorial content, and tightening up of what's there. I think cites are needed to establish the notability and factual basis for some of the claims made which is why I also added cite needed tags. There was quite a bit of peacockery. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Shame you won't take multiple editors' advice and take a break from editing. Clearly this was a stressful situation (not just for you, mind) and it's not conducive to good editing or constructive discussion. But since you foreground that last edit of yours again, I quote here what I said on my talk page "Actually, looking at that edit more closely, the blogspot was there in the article and had been for a long time. What Freakshownerd did was push it into its own paragraph - quite bizarrely. What I overlooked until now (zero edit summary not helping, and the diff isn't the easiest to scan) was that he did make other changes there, which might be construable as NPOVing/cleanup (eg "best-selling" appears unsourced). Darn it, if it hadn't been for the combination of no edit summary and possibly unintentional bizarre formatting with the key "2 children" line, I wouldn't have felt the need to block him." I do apologise for this oversight, with its deeply regrettable consequences. I doubt you'll believe me (especially if you are in fact a sock of a banned user, as I still believe...) but my actions were entirely in good faith. Rd232 talk 02:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's nice to see that you have at least gone some way in whispering an acknowledgement on your own talkpage about your massive fuck up and abusive behavior. The idea that you're a victim for edit warring against consensus and then blocking based on your misunderstanding of an unrelated edit in a situation in which you were deeply involved is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Maybe try a cold compress. Now if you'll restore my edit by self-reverting we can get on with content improvement. I certainly hope you've learned something from your highly abusive and disgusting behavior and that it won't be repeated any time soon. You also might consider dropping your frivolous and highly disruptive invocation of "BLP violation" for well sourced content expressing the subject's own views on population control measures. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Freakshownerd, you seem unable to do a single edit that does not include swearing and personal attacks. Rd232 has apologized to you, yet you go on and on with "massive fuck up", "abusive behavior", "your highly abusive and disgusting behavior" etc. I really think it is you who owes him an apology SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 02:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rd232 has NEVER apologized to me and is in fact playing the victim. If you want me to refrain from animated commentary on his highly abusive behavior I suggest you encourage him to apologize, to selfrevert the content he edit warrred over, and to cease stalking my contributions, slinging false accusations at me, and avoid lying about what he has and hasn't said and done. Cheers. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read his comment above? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 03:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You banned me from your talk page and haven't provided an email address - how exactly are you expecting an apology to be communicated? I posted some comments on my user talk page, where anyone interested can follow exactly my view of the matter, including what exactly I did apologise for there (which Freakshownerd is misrepresenting as part of his outpouring of hyperbolic vitriol, for which he's now been temporarily blocked). For the rest, the content focus of this discussion has much been lost and perhaps someone could restart it with a new section and a brief summary of the current content issue. It's possible everyone's happy with the status quo now, but it's not really clear. Rd232 talk 16:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might pause to consider the possibility that 8 editors and counting removing the text, plus an OTRS ticket, might mean there's something in it. The rest can wait til tomorrow and/or for somebody else. WP:IMPERFECT. Rd232 talk 02:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violation has been restored

[edit]

This edit here[17] has restored the BLP violation. Please note that I have notified the WP:BLPN of the situation.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Tmorton's modification. Stop howling BLP violation any time you disagree with an opinion offered in an article. See wp:NPOV. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
just as a note; I agree the Newsbusters source is no good ("just a blog" etc.). The National Post and The American Spectator may be reliable sources though. NP article is a news story as part of their site (so that passes). The AmSpec one I am less sure about but WP:RS is quite specific in saying: Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with the detailed rationale given at the BPLN discussion, I've amended the section to make it clear that Francis was raising various environmental concerns about overpopulation, not specifically climate change, though she tied the column in to the then current conference. . . dave souza, talk 03:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fsn has been indef'd as a sock of CoM William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

[edit]

Now that User:Freakshownerd has exited stage left (blocked for being a WP:SOCK), let's revisit this. It remains the case that Francis' view on this issue is currently sourced just to the original Francis article and a Fox interview. There's also been mentioned (above) an extremely short blog entry [19] and an article in Francis' own paper [20]. This amounts to a pretty small hill of beans. Francis has been a journalist for two decades - choosing one recent article to highlight in her biography is recentist cherrypicking which violates WP:UNDUE - particularly when looking at her books, the subject of which can reasonably be taken as indicative of the sort of things she writes about. So I suggest either delete it, or show that the view is that notable, or expand coverage of a range of her views so that mentioning it isn't so UNDUE. Rd232 talk 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we actually include some of her more notable views that may be more widely covered in reliable sources -- then come back to this issue of the population control and see how it fits in the article in context with her other notable views? I do agree that this is only the most recent view that has gotten attention, and it shouldnt be represented as the sum total of her views. Minor4th 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also question using the Fox News interview after re-reading it. Although it is her words, it was clear the interviewer was being really aggressive and was twisting her words and trying to make her look bad. It's hard to source her statements from that interview fairly because to explain the actual context would be OR. Minor4th 23:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. At very best it's sensationalism. If there are far better sources available that clearly demonstrate encyclopedic value, than it should be discussed. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Diane Francis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diane_Francis&oldid=1207286644"