Talk:Sally Hogshead/Archives/2014

One quote from Ms. Hogshead

I think one quote is appropriate. The article had one quote before. I think the one about the colored tickets is the most interesting. Perhaps this can be a compromise? The Man against the Sky (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any quotes are appropriate, especially trivial ones. The article is too much of a promo piece as is. In fact, all the fluff needs to be cut.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Marek, self quotes like these are simply WP:PUFF (especially if they are lengthy and in pretty boxes too). Surprised they are included in the article at all. Sionk (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys think those quotes are promotional? Super weird. They're incoherent and they make the woman look quite silly, and yet they're featured in reliable sources as examples of her genius. It seems to me that by removing them as puffery you are actually making the article overly tilted in Ms. Hogshead's favor. Perhaps you can try to see it more objectively. Really, read the quotes. They're not promotional. Also, if the quotes being in pretty boxes is an argument against them, why is there a way to put quotes in pretty boxes available?The Man against the Sky (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. Honestly to me the whole thing appears completely incoherent and makes me half-suspicious that it's ALL a put on so I can't differentiate. Though apparently people fall for this stuff. However, block quotes should still be avoided. There's some instances where they may be appropriate - hence the pretty boxes - but this isn't one of them (myself, I'd purge those pretty boxes from code or wherever).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So could I put them back in if I wrote some prose around them? Especially the one about the bacon, although I like the one with the different colored tickets too.The Man against the Sky (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the bacon one is just too irrelevant to the article and definitely non-encyclopedic. The colored tickets one... I'm ambiguous. I'll let others decide, but at very least it should be in article text not as a separate quote box. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Bacon-love is too hipsteresque-2004 anyway. I'll write some prose around the colored tickets one if no one objects here in a timely manner. How come no one complains of the material I put in about the hotel with the pillow menu, eh? How weird is that? It was in a reliable source, though. Who gets the hotels they stay at written up in magazines, I ask you.The Man against the Sky (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the amount of weird is a bit overwhelming so it's hard to know where to start.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.The Man against the Sky (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Re my comments and the response above, I'd point out that we're generally interested in the independent coverage about the subject, rather than what they say about themselves or their work. The sort of quotes in the boxes are the sort of thing publishers put on the back of the book, or in the press release for journalists. The quotes from Hogshead were taken from an apparent magazine source, so I would think a quote from the journalist/reviewer would be far more pertinent. I'm not doubting Hogshead has some notability, but this WP article seemed to be trying far too hard to oversell the subject. Sionk (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Except for the first quote, which was not put in by me, the quotes were from some of the very few articles about this subject which she did not write. They were from articles which did independent reporting on various speaking engagements of hers and were selected, therefore, by independent journalists, as representative of her work. It's hard for me to see how you can see them as promotional. However, Marek has convinced me that reasonable people around here don't like quote boxes and that bacon is too irrelevant. Although I disagree about the relevancy of bacon I do tend to have complex aesthetic reactions to its mention and therefore am happy to omit it whenever possible. How do you feel about my reinserting the story about the orange and green tickets, which is not from a book jacket but from a speech reported upon by an independent reporter, into the article in prose form? I think it's general incoherence as a metaphor for fascination, the subject on which she is, it seems, an internationally acclaimed expert, is important for the reader trying to understand her place in popular culture. Thank you for your consideration. The Man against the Sky (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

WTF is this?

Hogshead's business cards were designed by Beloved, an advertising agency in Orlando, which won a 2012 ADDY in the "stationery" category for its design. The cards, which Beloved's CEO Wagner dos Santos called "a 'leave behind' for her audience and also an exercise," took three or four months to go from concept to production.

like an advertisement

if find this article greatly overstating the subject and putting pointless information into it. basic factual information is lacking, like birthday etc. "world leading expert ..." according to what standard, "the business cards are designed by", i mean where are we and when does this stop? maybe it is better to delete the article ... --ThurnerRupert (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I came to this article preparing to send it to AfD, but actually the extensive coverage of her early career in the NYT convinced me that that wasn't realistic. However, don't let my opinion inhibit you from acting.The Man against the Sky (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hotel stay in 2013

As with the business cards, the hotel stay was deemed worthy of extensive description by a RS. Why should it not be included in the article?The Man against the Sky (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it's utter trivia. Probably it's a minor mention in a larger article about that particular hotel. Did that stay have any impact on her? Obviously not, because that isn't mentioned at all. Not everything mentioned in a RS needs to be covered in the article. It's purely a trivial detail, hence it's removal and why it should stay out. Ravensfire (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's from an article about Sally Hogshead which doesn't even mention the name of the hotel. It is given as an example of Hogshead's genius in perceiving some marketing blah-blah-blah. If you haven't checked the source, why are you even giving an opinion? also, you have some nerve telling me to read BRD. I added the material de novo with a source, someone was bold and removed sourced material, I reverted and started this section, which was unused by anyone until now. I'm not the one who needs to read BRD.The Man against the Sky (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:V and the Orlando Sentinel

The Orlando Sentinel is obviously a WP:RS. See WP:SOURCEACCESS for the reason why the fact that you can't find it online is irrelevant. I can't post a link to it because the proxy url I have to use to access it will reveal private information about me, but it is well within policy to use as a source. The full statement that backs up the claim, quoted directly from the newspaper, is:

Orlando advertising agency Beloved has won a national award from the American Advertising Federation. Beloved was the only local agency to win a gold "Addy" after advancing from the federation's district level to the national competition. The agency won the stationery category with an interactive business card that features a series of peel-back strips in addition to client-contact information. Wágner dos Santos, Beloved's president and chief executive officer, said the cards, made for Sally Hogshead , an Orlando-based public speaker and author, went from concept to production in three or four months. "It's a 'leave behind' for her audience and also an exercise," dos Santos said.

It's on page A14, if that helps. You presumably have a library available to you.The Man against the Sky (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

With the addition of the page number, I'm willing to assume good faith that you have actually located the source in question rather than just restoring it blindly, which is what you previously appeared to be doing. Ideally, you should look into whether there's any way to provide a link to where you accessed it (for instance, if you're accessing something through a newswire service, you could provide a link to the newswire version and include |subscription=yes in the citation template, as I did in a bunch of the links I added earlier today). This article, as you know, is the subject of high contention and high suspicion, as well as being based on sources that are of questionable provenance; though you're right that source policy doesn't require online access, in cases where sources are or may be challenged, it is to your benefit as someone fighting for the article for the sources to be verifiable to as many people as possible. Remember that WP:BURDEN says that the burden lies on someone who wants to add or restore the material to provide adequate verification for the material. If someone questions material you're adding, the best approach is to do as you've now done and provide verification for that material - or even add additional verification to what was seen as weak verification - rather than simply reverting insistently. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I have to access the articles through a proxy and the URL it generates reveals private information about me. Every one of those NYT and other articles that didn't have links included that you found links for, and thank you very much for that!, was added by me. I don't know why you think I'd make up some random article from the Orlando Sentinel when every other source I added was personally checked out to be OK by you. Don't go quoting WP:BURDEN at me. I will eat my hat if WP:BURDEN overrides WP:SOURCEACCESS. By providing a source, even if it's a handwritten medieval manuscript only available by appointment in the British Library, I have met WP:BURDEN. You should try reading WP:AGF. Also, I disagree that I'm reverting insistently. You're the one who's reluctant to use the talk page.The Man against the Sky (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen anything so daft than to make a claim to notability based on an award won by an advertising agency that designed the subject's business cards. How very tenuous indeed is that?! The words "straws" and "clutching" spring strangely to mind. I'm inclined to remove it as utterly irrelevant. Sionk (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability applies to the subjects of articles, not to the contents of articles. See WP:NNC. Please don't remove it without further discussion, as the matter is under discussion.The Man against the Sky (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess it can be classed as interesting trivia. Sionk (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

My feeling exactly, which is why I included it in the section on her personal life.The Man against the Sky (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Business cards

Does anyone want to argue that every fact in an article must be "notable" in order for it to be included in the article if the subject is notable? The business cards were described in detail by a reliable source that is independent of the subject of the article, therefore they are certainly eligible for inclusion. Please discuss before removing again.The Man against the Sky (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

ThurnerRupert, why take out sourced material without discussion. This section has been here for 5 days now. Read WP:BRD and discuss before removing sourced material. Note that you also removed sourced material about Hogshead's sister without providing a rationale.The Man against the Sky (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

conflict of interest warning

i recommended via notice on his talk page that User:The Man against the Sky is better off editing some other article, given that this is one of the articles which are suspect to be paid, see e.g. ars technica. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You are way out of line here. Please to point to any edits of mine which seem biased or conflicted before you haul off and accuse me of a conflict of interest.The Man against the Sky (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, in your edit summary on the page when you added the COI template, you said add conflict of interest editing as one person only edits that article and constantly removes notices about advertisment ... I assume you mean me because I'm the only one you've accused of COI editing. However, if you read the history, you will see here that John Broughton removed the advert notice, not me. Have you been hassling that editor with your baseless accusations?The Man against the Sky (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

To my reading, The Man, many of your edits are so contrary to common sense that they can only be justified by a conflict of interest or paid editing, given your claim that you understand our policies (if you were not claiming this, and had not seen proper policy application acted out in many edits to the article already, I would assume that you were just a very new editor who didn't understand what constituted encyclopedic coverage). "In 2013 she stayed at a hotel which offered a pillow menu" and "[...]whom she asked 'Are your credit unions giving your members an orange ticket or a green ticket? The green ticket is just the utility of the credit union, but there is no buzz, no social media generated. When a brand fascinates, people will pay more, have higher engagement and give more loyalty.'" are so non-important, so irrelevant to the encyclopedic topic of Sally Hogshead, and so apparently non-notable in any common-sense view that I cannot think of any reason why someone would attempt to brute-force them (multiple times!) into an article without either a severe misunderstanding of policy (which should preclude attempting to force edits based on one's misunderstanding) or some outside motivation that runs counter to the intention of creating a good encyclopedia article.

Please, please, if you are as new an editor as you say, understand that you've reverting multiple editors who are years more experienced than you at editing encyclopedia articles in an encyclopedic voice and that you are making some pretty bad errors in attempting to do what you think is best. If you're not a new editor, and you're editing for pay, out of a conflict of interest, or based on a personal request somewhere, you need to disclose that fact and your usual username, and you need to stop obstructing attempts to clean up this article. As it stands, it's incredibly close to being nominated for deletion as promotional spam based on unreliable sources; if you persist in restoring purely promotional content in the face of that, you are doing the article's longevity absolutely zero favors, and quite likely doing it direct harm. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say I was a new editor. Obviously I'm not a new editor. I'm a WP:SOCKLEGIT. What in the world about my edits makes you think I have a COI? Who are my edits helping? If you all are so darn experienced, how is it that you don't see that if reliable and independent sources think that her hotel stays, her business cards, and her comments on ticket colors are worthy of discussion, we at Wikipedia shouldn't second guess. Please explain how any of my edits could plausibly be justified by a conflict of interest or paid editing. The first person to accuse me of this based the accusation on my putative "constantly removes notices about advertisement," which I didn't even do once. Really, if I have a COI or am being paid, please explain who's benefiting. Also, I'm not trying to brute-force anything. I am the one who is using the talk page. This is your first appearance here and instead of discussing content, you merely make accusations. As far as notability, nominate it for all I care. As I said before I came here to nominate it, but then found the coverage in the NYT, which for me made an AfD seem unlikely to succeed, regardless of the surreally stupid stuff in the lady's career that came after it. Why don't you stick to the substance of your edits and stop casting aspersions?The Man against the Sky (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And also I don't think it's reasonable to accuse me of obstructing attempts to clean up this article. Did you even read through the history? I took out a huge amount of cruft the other day before you even showed up and not only that, I put in a negative review of her book to balance the section. Did you notice it? It more or less says her book is bullshit. I put that in. Please try to see what's happening before you accuse me.The Man against the Sky (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

you asked why i am thinking you might have a COI. because your edit history is 100% sally hogshead. you re-add contents others remove, repeatedly. you spend a lot of time on this talk page. therefor i'd find it appropriate if you'd just go away and edit one of the 4mio other articles like most other volunteers do, just to show you care about wikipedia, not sally hogshead. i'd call it _invitation_ not _accusation_ :) --ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This whole conversation seems to be completely bonkers, in all honesty. Someone spends two days cleaning up/improving an article and they get accused of COI? What lies beneath this seems to be a variety of editing disagreements. Why not stick to discussing these? What happened to WP:AGF?! Sionk (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing the actual content of my work.The Man against the Sky (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

ThurnerRupert, it's obvious that you didn't bother looking at the content of my contributions at all. Look at the careful and neutral work I did on her career section. You left it all in there, and if it's so obviously tainted then you're tainted by it as well. I don't need to prove anything to you by editing other articles. You need to assume good faith and stick to discussing content. And your accusation that I spend too much time on this talk page is just bizarre. The talk page is for discussing article content, and every time one of my edits has been controversial I've taken it here per WP:BRD. Too many other editors, yourself included, have refused at all to discuss actual content. You're spending too little time on this talk page. Why don't you go edit some other articles to prove that you care about wikipedia, not winning a point.The Man against the Sky (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Plus, if I only edit this article with this account there's no way I can violate WP:SOCKLEGIT because I will obviously not be using multiple accounts to support a point of view. I wish you'd just relax a little bit because you're ignoring multiple guidelines and policies in your accusations against me, your editing is problematic, and you are making more work for everyone by being so overzealous.The Man against the Sky (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hogshead's sister

Some editor removed sourced material about Hogshead's sister in this edit without providing any rationale whatsoever and without initiating discussion on this talk page, where he/she evidently thinks it is a failing in a wikipedia editor to spend too much time. Does anyone thing that a sourced statement of who her sister is, an independently notable sister, by the way, should not be included in the section on her personal life?The Man against the Sky (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hogshead is a "fascination expert"[11] and a "science-based marketer."[12]

This material, well sourced, was removed as "unverified." Obviously it's verified. These are from some of the few independent secondary sources I can find about the woman. Why take them out? How are they promotional? "Fascination expert"? It's goofy. One could as easily make the case that this was an attack on her since it's so surreally ridiculous that serious journalist write this kind of nonsense, and yet they do. This is what serious journalists write about this evidently serious subject. It should be included.The Man against the Sky (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)