Talk:Ella Emhoff

Full name - primary source

The Congressional Record is a primary source. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we must never base such articles on such sources. We need to find a reliable secondary source that supports the name or it cannot be included. Elizium23 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Citations for birthday

The Tweet from her father has been removed per WP:SPS: it is making a claim about a third party. Elizium23 (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that since he is the father, the date he became her father is (also) a claim about himself. But regardless, I'm pretty sure that the policy does not mean such claims when it talks about "claims about third parties". I think per WP:COMMONSENSE we can assume that most parents will not lie about their children's birthdays even in self-published sources. Regards SoWhy 10:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal Life and Public Image

To avert an edit war with 4 edit IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:19E:427E:5BB0:49ED:DF75:E6E7:6900 ...

Here is the text under contention:

After the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Emhoff encouraged her 318,000 Instagram followers to donate to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, even though there were accusations that some of its staff were involved with Hamas during the October 7 attack. Previously, Emhoff had also raised funds for Gaza through the Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund. She later removed the link to UNRWA’s website after the New York Post reported on it.

My problem is with the phrase "even though". See WP:SYNTH This implies she encouraged her followers to contribute while already knowing and in spite of the allegations. The other sentences are facts and are cited.

I am removing the "even though" phrase. If an editor can find a valid secondary source which states that she knew about the allegations prior to posting the encouragement on her Instagram account, please feel free to add that information and cite the source.

Otherwise, do not restore unfounded conclusions.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody will easily find a RS stating she knew of it before her posting since the White House refused to comment, same for the office of Doug Emhoff. Many possibilities over why they wouldn't want to comment, of course.

That said, your post here is clearly Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and reeks of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Remember that Wikipedia:IP editors are human too. I would highly encourage you to read Wikipedia:IPDIS and Wikipedia:FOC. There are many, many reasons to be an IP editor and Wikipedia admin's have stood by these. Implying anything pejorative of me due to being an IP editor is wrong on many levels and as such I formally ask that you retract your accusations @Bobsd.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:70AA:BAA4:89F9:63F2 (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to: To avert an edit war with 4 edit IP

I made no aspersions: I did not accuse you of misconduct without evidence.

Avoiding an edit war was based upon your response to User:ChthonicSweetie "Undid revision 1241784318 by ChthonicSweetie (talk) These are more than credible, have their own very lengthy WP article, and are WP:DUE give the Rs coverage over why its was troubling for Emhoff to be soliciting donations to UNRWA. If you don't like it, take it to the Talk Page and don't revert again."

"4 edit IP" was me making an assumption that you were a newcomer that was not being polite to other editors, as I assumed that was an example of a newcomer (your IP postings at the time numbered 4) biting a newcomer (56 edits). Or you may have 1000's of edits under a username, I don't know.

So to avoid a conflict with you I did as you requested of User:ChthonicSweetie by using the talk page prior to making changes to that paragraph. I left all of the factual statements that you had added, and removed only the phrase (which you yourself have admitted can not be cited and therefore was clearly WP:SYNTH.

I would say that your response demanding apologies and retractions is unwarranted, but does support my fear that making any changes to that paragraph was going to be contentious, even after taking the time to explain on the talk page. For my part I am not demanding anything from you, except to review my changes and if you want to revert, please discuss first on the talk page.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Referring to IP editors by their edit count is Wikipedia:Aspersion. You wouldn't do that with respect to registered editors, right? This shows a biased view ex ante @Bobsd.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:70AA:BAA4:89F9:63F2 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I already said that my usage of "4 edit IP" was making an assumption about the editor as a newbie, based mainly on the edit count. But please show me where in Wikipedia:Aspersion it calls referring to IP editors by their edit count an aspersion. What I see is that Wikipedia:Aspersion is about accusing another of misconduct without evidence, which I did not do.

As to registered editors with only 4 edits saying "If you don't like it, take it to the Talk Page and don't revert again." I would draw the same conclusion. Any changes may be contentious. It's about the comment.

I'm open to learning about proper behavior and policies, but at this point, you are just discussing feeling wronged by me, which I did not intend, and not anything about the actual changes made, nor the appropriateness of the edit comment you made to ChthonicSweetie.

I suggest not continuing this conversation on the article talk page, since it has nothing to do with the content. Or continue it on a user talk page, or open an issue with an admin about it. My edit history is all under one user account, so it is easy to check on everything behavior-wise.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Maintenance Tag Removal discussion

UPDATE: OP has changed position and does not think the tag should be removed  • Bobsd •  (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Current tag under discussion -

This article has multiple issues.

Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This biographical article is written like a résumé. (August 2024)

This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage. (August 2024)

WP:WTRMT 3) If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error. Consider first discussing the matter with the original placer of the template (unless this user is no longer active on Wikipedia). In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page;

• WP:NOTRESUME does not apply in this case. This article does not act as a personal blog, webpage, etc. While it needs improvement in writing style, the article does not meet, in itself, the WP:NOTRESUME criteria.
• WP:ROUTINE does not apply to the majority of this article.
• WP:PROMOTION does not apply. It is not "a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing."
• WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. It is not primarily Original reporting, News reports, Who's who, Celebrity gossip and diary. Some are included due to WP:BIO

I think the tag should be removed, and I will do so if there are no objections or discussion about removal. Thank you.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal. The article would not meet any criteria regarding GA and has a collection of personal achievements in an Wikipedia:Undue manner with an overreliance of primary sources.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:70AA:BAA4:89F9:63F2 (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it needs a lot of work to meet GA criteria. But in my opinion, several of the check-boxes used do not seem to apply, as I responded. Why not just use a general needs to be cleaned up to Wikipedia standards tag? Hard to disagree with that. And then in the talk page discuss specific places that it reads like a promotion, for example, so they can removed or improved. Sorry, but I just don't see where most of the listed problems are compared to many, many similar articles. I'll wait for more feedback.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTRESUME, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Primary.

Just a few examples:

Emhoff is a member of The 3% Movement, an organization focused on increasing the number of women creative directors in the United States. < Said movement is not notable enough to have its own WP page. It is not a relevant link, Wikipedia:UNDUE for her career and it relies exclusively on a primary source.

In 2020, she announced she would support the organization For the Gworls, a black, transgender-led collective that raises money to help black transgender people pay for rent, gender-affirming surgery, travel, and medical care. < what happened here? Did this "announcement" go anywhere important to her career that it is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? It seems like a collection of "statements" intended to enhance her image while serving as a resume of sorts. See Wikipedia:Promotion.

After the inauguration, Emhoff's Instagram following increased from 50,000 followers to over 300,000 in less than a week. < Is this a MrBeast article? Does this represent a due inclusion in the overall article so as to satisfy Wikipedia:NotNewspaper and Wikipedia:Notpromotion?

In 2021, she founded Soft Hands, a company focused on exploring "opportunities in fashion, design, creative consulting, and hosting events." < This is sourced to her own website. It relies excessively on references to primary sources.

Her mother taught her how to knit at age six. < . Additionally, this doesn't pass Wikipedia:Due.

There are plenty more, this is a just a quick first pass. Moreover, plenty of sentences lack citation. You wanting to dismiss the legitimate concerns on the states of this article, which is mostly fluff, does not belong on WP.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F5EC:F9DF:9B57:D74A (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the response. I get it, and agree with the particular points you made.

I guess I was comparing this BLP to many other poorly written BLP's I've read here, and thought you were being too critical, and slapping a tag on it willy-nilly. Obviously that is not the case, with the attention you have given to making these points.

I wish there was a process of standards-based peer-review prior to publishing all edits. That way, articles would only improve over time, rather than the current process. The best article can be ground down to s*** in a few weeks due to careless changes. Then a tag would have some clout, and we would have more support of standards. And I would be more in my comfort zone. I agree the tag should stay as is. Thanks for your patience explaining to me.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your concerns. I hope most experienced editors would be like you. And I hear you, there's this issue of a lack of standards for WP articles, basing it all on "local consensus". This means, in practice, that no to BLP are alike. Sure, there are some ideals like following Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons recs but in practice the "consensus" on what is due is much different on a per article basis.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:E149:4768:25F8:B3B (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Early life

Removal of:

Although her father is Jewish, a spokesperson for Emhoff said that Ella does not identify as Jewish, since Judaism is "not something she grew up with".

To be replaced with something more accurate like: Although her father is Jewish, Emhoff is not Jewish and did not grow up around the Jewish faith.

Explanation: Emhoff isn't Jewish, her mother being Kerstin Emhoff and if she didn't grow up with the faith, even by the loosest reform standards still won't consider her Jewish. Due to Judaism's awkward status as an ethno-religion, Her statement implies actually being a non-practicing Jew when she is non-Jewish.

RCSCott91 (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

References