Talk:Paulette Leaphart

Points of view

It would seem that the majority of edits on this page seem to match the attitudes noted by the CNN article. They seem to either seek to glorify Leaphart, or to demonize her. There is much more from the CNN article that could be added to this article, but before editing this article, please read WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sections

With the publication of the CNN article, and the media attention it has garnered within the last day, it seems that this subject will be the topic of intensive scrutiny over content and neutrality. The best way to offset content dispute and rearrangement presently would be to construct sections that might corral the most traffic. A lede is essential to highlight the differential aspects now generated within the subject's life; as well as the film Scar Story (and the reasons for its abandonment), the CNN article, Personal life, et al. As it stands now, the article is weighted specifically toward a certain point of view not neutral to WP standards, and is in need of reliable sources and inline citations separate from the subject; since credibility from the subject herself has now been questioned. Maineartists (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• As can be seen (4.5.2017), more sources and content has been added to this article due to the recent investigative report released by CNN news. Careful research has been carried out to try and include other sources to back claims within the report and offer other editors the opportunity to use these for further editing and contribution. It is obvious that with this new light being shed on the subject that POV may lean heavily in the opposite direction prior to April 2, 2017. However, if one studies the sources, prior to this date, all "statements" have come from the subject herself verbally and no sources have backed up her claims. The CNN article is the only report that has investigated and presented actual facts to counter any claims made to date. With this said, POV should not be an issue when it comes to presenting facts. Personal opinion of the subject prior to or after the publication of the article should not be a factor. Last, please feel free to edit the article as an encyclopedic entry. There's plenty there now to work from based on the sources provided. Bring any discussions here if there are any disputes. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus

78.26 & 174.33.121.48 - you both are now 1 RR away from being blocked for 3RR. Bring your discussion here for consensus on the matter of inclusion of content regarding the CNN quote. Do not revert. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not in the mood to block myself today. 174.33.121.48's argument is disingenuous, in that the three-times removed statement is directly related to the topic. However, the whole article needs a complete re-write, as the first paragraph is too pro-Leaphart, and there is much biographical information, as well as documented instances of fraud by the subject, that needs to be added to the article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% as you can see. I always side with discussion rather than edit summaries. At least we are on the same page if it happens again. I am already working on a re-write; but wanted to start the process here first so that all are "in-the-know". Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic progress

Thank you, @Maineartists: for the fantastic work you did on this article. Just a few thoughts:

1. Regarding cancer "metastasizing to other organs in her body" does the article say that medical records show this isn't true, or does it say that medical records were not provided supporting this dissertation. It is a very important difference.
2. I still believe that it is important to note that the CNN article notes that Leaphart has brought attention to how cancer affects African-American women disproportionately, both physically and economically, for various reasons. This brings a bit of balance to what is otherwise a disproportionately negative article. (and it should be disproportionately negative for the reasons you outline). Anyway, see if you can get something from the first five paragraphs under "The media and the message" section.
3. In the CNN article, one of the specific criticism's of Leahpart's journey was that her cause was "undefined". This is also under the "media and the message" section, and I think it is also a central point.

Again, thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

78.26 Thank you for bringing this to the WP community's attention. It was a very interesting topic to research and work on. I look forward to the next steps of collaboration this work brings! You are 100% correct in your assessments; and I'm very glad you spotlighted the above.

• 1) Medical records were not provided to support this disseration; and should be noted as such in the article. My statement is misleading and unclear. I will correct that.
• 2) You are exactly right. There were many positive quotes that in spite of all the controversy, advocates were quoted as saying: "If it draws attention and keeps the conversation open, what does it matter?" I will go back in and extract these quotes for balance. My only reservation in doing so was that for every one quote I found in advocacy, there were 2-3 more in adversary. I didn't know where to start, stop or draw the line. My apologies. But I'll give it a try! or maybe another editor will take up the torch, too.
• 3) I agree. I haven't removed the header yet. I'll give my fingers a rest and start in on it again with a fresh set of eyes. Thanks so much for your expertise and insight! I really appreciate it! Maineartists (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Header

The article has now reached a level of POV consistent with the subject's change of notability; and construction regarding sections is now complete. If any editor feels that a new section warrants its own creation merited from quantifiable content, please add it. Likewise, if there is content that better expresses certain aspects of the subject's life prior to the CNN article not represented here now, please add it. Thank you.