Talk:Michelle Steel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Personal Life

What Michelle Steel does with her daughter is not notable and should not be included under personal life. The event was not significant enough to be included in 2014 but is only added once it's mentioned in a campaign attack ad. Also the sources given are clearly hit pieces from biased sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper reporting every event in her life.107.212.30.26 (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.212.30.26 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with anon IP editor. The information might be worthy of inclusion if the editors who are attempting to put the information in the article were providing us with reliable sources. It has been pointed out many times that Pink News and the others are not reliable sources. All of the sources are from websites maintained by advocacy groups that provide one-sided information on merely on one topic of discussion. I have repeated asked for those reliable sources and I have not received them. Also, the incident supposedly happened in 2014, six years ago, and there is no mention of it in reliable sources such as NY Times, Washington Post, etc. The incident is not worthy of inclusion and the editors who have the burden of proof have not attempted to provided reliable sources or even discuss it on the talk page. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur, these are not reliable sources and the topic is not worthy of inclusion. Tchouppy (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be included in the 'LGBT' issues section, which was removed. The remarks have been verified by multiple sources. The fact that it was reported by Pink News, Metro Weekly and others instead of the New York Times does not mean it is reliabl, but simply that it is a LGBT-interest story. Not all news has to be of general and nationwide interest to be included, local papers and issue journalism can be reliable too. Eccekevin (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've re-added the section since the event has generated controversy. However, I have removed most of the sources since they are redundant. MetroWeekly and PinkNews (which is listed as reliable in reliable sources) meet the standards for independence and reliability and are enough to establish noteworthiness. Best, Soapwort (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

After reading the citations, I corrected the passage about Michele's comments and actions according to the media of her statements. The prior statements stated that Loyola Mary Mount was brainwashing her child, the press and her statements don't support that version. Michaelwma (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The quote from Steel is fairly unambiguous:

“We have two daughters, and one graduated from USC and one graduated from Vanderbilt. I always talk about — the USC kid was just perfect, but God’s always fair, so they give you [a] little different kid for the second one,” Steel said.
“So she actually begin — began, she chose the University of [California,] Santa Cruz, and then she started talking about that, you know, ‘I’m going to vote for Obama. … And then she said, ‘God gave us two men — what’s wrong with gay marriage?’ We brought her back and we sent her to [Loyola] Marymount,” Steel said to laughter from the audience.
“So she graduated — she actually went to [Loyola] Marymount [for] one year of brainwash, and then after that, we sent her to Vanderbilt.”

The video of the event within the references received a DMCA takedown, however other clips of the specific quote can be found if searched for. I've restored the original quote with the mention of the word "brainwash" since the sentence is about the controversy, which was largely centered around the use of that word. Soapwort (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Soapwart please cite youtube videos of your phrasing, I have not been able to find quotes on YouTube or Internet Archive. Michaelwma (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Both sources unambiguously describe the controversy as being about Steel's anti-LBGTQ views. The edit immediately previous to mine removed that aspect, I restored it. Steel's use of "brainwash" was artless English. No native speaker would use the word that way, as a matter of both syntax and affect. Picking that one word and quoting it serves to distract from the actual controversy and mock the speaker for her English. It is not appropriate. Suggest reverting back to the version of 11:22, 7 May, with the addition of the edit adding 2014. -- M.boli (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I support keeping the "brainwash" language. That seems to be literally what she meant and is consistent with her other positions, so I'm unclear why it should be kept out. The notion that a major politician, who was a politician at the time, is incapable of speaking English and that therefore we should exclude the things she has said is absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It has to be reported as it was. Our role is not to try and decide whether she used that word incorrectly, we’re not opinion writers for a magazine. We have to include the quote how it is, in a neutral way, including the word “brainwash”. Eccekevin (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Please cite youtube videos of Michelle phrasing, I have not been able to find footage on YouTube, Internet Archive, or ?. At this point we are relying perhaps on a second-hand source ie Pink ... If an editor would be so kind as to cite an existing video url as a citation? If that is allowed on Wiki? Michaelwma (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

PinkNews is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSPSS, so I think the two existing references are enough for the article, but you can find reuploaded clips on social media: here is one. I'm open to adding it as an additional reference although it may get taken down. Soapwort (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The main point is that the incident illustrated Steel's attitudes on a question of public policy. That is what made the incident newsworthy and possibly encyclopedia-worthy. Her anti-LBGTQ attitude is what the two sources describe as controversial. Steel's actual quote is quite discursive and a little hard to follow. Earlier editors chose to describe the controversial incident and quote exactly one word. A word which stands out as artless, almost certainly would not be used that way by a native speaker (except perhaps sarcastically), and contributed nothing to understanding either Steel or the issue. -- M.boli (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If you watch the video linked above, it seems clear Steel is well aware of what's she saying, but is being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure what her not being a non-native speaker has to do with it, "brainwash" has a pretty unique meaning which is unlikely to be confused or mistranslated for something else.

Regardless, this isn't a matter of speculating about Steel's choice of words, the question here is "is this a fair rendering of the controversy?", and I don't see how you can say there is too much emphasis on "brainwash" when it's quoted right there in the title of the reference. Soapwort (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So now you have heard her talk, you know the word was was "somewhat tongue-in-cheek", and you think it is appropriate to put it in her biography in written text as if there were a controversy over brainwashing children. Rep. Steel revealed to be in favor of brainwash, non-brainwash constituents object that they deserve fair representation is not what those two articles are about. -- M.boli (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources, not on opinions of users. The current reliable sources say nothing about the comment being tongue in cheek or in any way not what she meant. If you have such sources post them, until then we must follow the current sources. Eccekevin (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Except that's not what it says, and it's rendered just like it is in the sources. Apparently some people think her half-joking use of the word was in poor taste, or that it wasn't a joke (since she did indeed withdraw and send her kid somewhere else because of her views). Either way, to continue speculating about what she meant is fruitless. If it's notable and not WP:UNDUE I fail to see why we should remove the word other than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Soapwort (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)