Talk:Sandra Fluke/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Biography; few sources pre-Hearing

Extensively discussed at Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke controversy. Georgetown alumni or internal magazines reliable for Georgetown activities only. No confirmation (actually, a concerning LACK of ability to confirm) of much of the pre-Georgetown activities. Also problem with type of "activist", generally better to leave without adjective. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The links are to bios presented by Georgetown Law School. I consider it Reliable. Casprings (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Casp; come on, you know "I consider it Reliable" doesn't meet WP:RS standards. Am open to you finding ACTUAL sources, but as you also know, a few months ago, none supported these assertions. Let's not rehash a settled argument.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

IP, come on, you know that "I consider it Reliable" is not Casprings' criterion for reliability. Instead, Casprings is pointing out (or anyway claiming) that the info comes from Georgetown Law School, and that it is this that makes it reliable, in Casprings' interpretation of WP's criteria for reliability. You are of course free to disagree with Casprings about this. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Extensively discussed on RL-SF article. There are multiple sources that say she worked for Sanctuary for Families, that is fine (though the years are not sourced). The rest all comes from a single puff piece in an internal Georgetown promo publication. This is a) not subject to editorial supervision (except for academic and school activities) b) basically written (and then selected and cut down) by the students themselves, and therefore WP:SELFSOURCE, and c) contradicted by other sources, including the other Georgetown puff profile. Not reliably sourced. And Cap's personal opinion does not change that.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't feel strongly either way, but could include hometown, High School, Undergraduate degree and activities, Law school student activities, student journal contributions, fellowship to L.A., etc.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I also added sources Casprings (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Casprings. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, C; again, extensively discussed before on the other page. Like your new references, problem is, they confirm ONLY the fact that she worked at Sanctuary for Families, which was never disputed (but yes, this improves the sourcing of that). The only source for the "co-found" and such is still an old WP:SELFSOURCE promo blurb that probably needs to be taken down. As discussed on the RL-SF page, all other sources contradict this promo, but giving benefit of the doubt, make these exaggerations at best. Not WP:RS by a long shot. Still.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Huff Post is in there and that is a RS that supports the stated facts.Casprings (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please READ the Huff Post blurb - it confirms hometowns, Georgetown and employment at Sanctuary for Families. Period. Nothing more. The WLALA profile (not edited) quotes the similarly unedited WP:SELFSOURCE blurb from Georgetown Law PIRG Scholars that is problematic and NOT WP:RS. Circular or self-quoting web blurbs do not make it more WP:RS. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Georgetown Law is RS. Casprings (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh.... This is getting a little silly. Two editors, Casp and a SPA IP have claimed Huffpo has verified the "co-found", etc... stuff that is in a problematic blurb that (as stated above and extensively discussed in RL-SF article) is nowhere near WP:RS. A web blurb taken from that web blurb (it is a direct quote) does not make it any better; there is obviously no editorial input when a site (NOW) merely quotes the internet. WP deals with this extensively; NOT WP:RS, and called circular referencing, such as when someone puts bad info on WP. A day later, many sites will list the bad info; that does NOT mean it is now referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There is NO EDITORIAL oversight of the student promo blurbs. The reputation of Georgetown is NOT because of the promo blurbs in its fundraising profiles.

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;[Fluke material fails]

it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);[Fluke material fails]

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;[fail]

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;[Unequivocal FAIL; information is not just doubted, but contradicted by GT and unlikeley to the point of ridiculousness]

the article is not based primarily on such sources.[Biography IS based on this one source] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

INCLUDE

Degree; Cornell, 2003, Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies

First and only job. Worthy of a note only, possibly mention Sanctuary for Families, nothing else of note. Don't get me wrong, Sanctuary for Families is a great charity, but [RELEVANCE] of their general aims to Fluke is a little tangential. Further, they list all their key employees, and she was never one of them, going back to 2004 (the last time one left). If you need any proof that she was a five-year entry-level grunt, she lists Program Evaluation Initiative as a key contribution. Institutional Reassessment is something organizations like this do on a 5, 7, or 10 year cycle, and is one of the most onerous and dull housekeeping function of a big non-profit. Something you add to a Law School application to puff up your CV, not put in an Encyclopedia.

Media leading up to the Congressional hearing where she wasn't a witness. Pretty minor stuff, if you stick to things actually relevant to the hearings or speeches. Obviously, the only major one is her inclusion in a student press event Feb 9 organized by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend where Fluke was one of several who spoke representing Catholic students. Relevant, because it is the only reason anyone knew who she was, and the speech is basically the same as the speech she later delivered [1]. She also wrote an editorial in the Georgetown student newspaper, basically the same as both speeches. Only other relevant link is her only law article, in The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, entitled "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons" (link is a pay-for site http://articleworks.cadmus.com/buy?c=1010377&url_back=http%3A%2F%2Farticleworks.cadmus.com%2Fgeolaw%2Fzsw00311.html&d=zsw00311000613&buyopt=2&price=3.50&publication_id=zsw ), not notable of itself, but relevant as she argues that free gender reassignment is also a universal human right, tangentially related to insurance issues. Also aware that she seems to want to scrub this from the bio blurbs she sends out, but "Vice President of Georgetown Law's Women's Legal Alliance and Career Chair for Outlaw, the Law Center's LGBT student group."

DELETE

all the student activities stuff. On a job application, OK, but listing which activities, which law clinics she attended, interning on professors' projects; NOT relevant or notable. These are all self-authored in a University press office publication.

New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court. If she says she was involved, fine. Going to meetings about this, also fine, take her at her word (which is the text of the WP entry), but NOT relevant to article, and can't exactly be called an accomplishment. "Co-founded"? If true, perhaps notable but still questionable relevance. Problem is, this was actually founded by NY State Sen George Winner, from Upstate. No mention of Fluke in any reports on this or the foundational paperwork. Only doc she is supposed to be on is a petition/letter of support circulated around the State after Sen Winner started this, which included 190 names and signatures in support of cooperating on the legislative push. Co-founder seems a little ridiculous, if all she was was one of the first 200 people to join Sen Winner's new campaign. It is a 20-year long struggle, to co-found she would have done so when 5 years old, and living in PA.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Georgetown Law is as well respected as it comes. If they put something as a bio, there is no reason not to think it is true. Moreover, given this is her bio sheet, it is highly relevent and notable. I suggest a Request for Comment to get other views. Casprings (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, add that the "Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence" is similarly suspect. First, the "Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence" is not what the group is called. If you search "Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence" you will get the puff blurb Fluke wrote for the publicity department when she entered Georgetown, and re-posts of the blurb Fluke wrote, mostly in personal tweets or far-left or far-right personal blogs. Nothing but Fluke, no references to the work the Taskforce does. If you search for ""Manhattan Borough President's Domestic Violence Taskforce" or "Manhattan Borough President" "Domestic Violence Taskforce" you will find the Taskforce, its publications, news, updates, members, but (almost) no mention of Fluke (one or two attack blogs "corrected" the blurb). This obviously speaks to the lack of fact-checking on the press/alumni office blurb (which we already knew) that it did not get the name right, but also directs readers to the correct research sources.

If you look up the MBP DVTF, it has 50 members, and they don't change that much year to year. If you have a connection that interfaces with the NYPL databases, member rosters are published; a search of the the ones overlapping Fluke's first job out of college do NOT include Fluke on any roster. If you can't access the public records, then pull up any of the dozen or so publications of the MBP DVTF; most are released as pdfs. Again, each has a page somewhere thanking everyone who contributed to this or that project, from members to the person who got the coffee; again, no publication from that time mentions Fluke in any way; a virtual impossiblity for someone who actually WAS a member. A number of Sanctuary for Families executives, even down to mid-level (Fluke never became any kind of key employee there, as discussed) directors WERE members, but not Fluke. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

tag needed on Dubious Biographical info

Of the tags available for contested content, is the most appropriate. The factual accuracy is highly disputed, to the point of unlikeliness, as extensively discussed above and at the RL-SF Talk page (archive). The parts that are in dispute, and have consensus for removal, but are subject to edit warring/ revert war represent less than 5 factual statements, therefore the section heading would not be the appropriate one. Since this Article is under AfD review, and seems heading to D, better to simply tag the appropriate sentences. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

NOT WP:RS

[Self- authored Student profile for GT Law (requirement of PILS Scholars]

Is the sole source for the following

Fluke co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court which successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including teen LGBTQ victims. Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.

[|website bio cut and pasted from self-authored GT Student profile]

[|website bio cut and pasted from self-authored GT Student profile]

[|website bio cut and pasted from self-authored GT Student profile]

[|website bio cut and pasted from self-authored GT Student profile]

Marginally WP:RS Not cut and pasted, supports only

While in New York City, she worked for Sanctuary for Families, which aids victims of domestic violence and human trafficking.

[| Advocacy article saying Fluke should sue – no mention of dubious bio assertions]

[bio – no mention of dubious assertions, just Sanctuary for Families]

[|No mention of dubious bio items, mention of the only source for bio being self-authored Student bio, does mention “Editor of the [student Journal of Gender and Law”]]

First, these are not self authored. This has been discussed in full and at WP:RSN, here.Casprings (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The basic dispute is over the bio of Sandra Fluke. I think the bio should be more robust and that is supported by various sources. On the other hand, there are questions of the notability of those sources. Casprings (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No secret what I think about it. Her previous page was removed in an AFD. She's less notable now than she was then. If there's an issue with sources, that should be a strong indication this article shouldn't even exist. - Xcal68 (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Kaldari and Xcal68 When this Article was "snuck" through deletion review without notifying the parties to the AfD, I advocated giving it a little time to see if anything really new had come up to make Fluke Notable according to WP guidelines. It is becoming apparent that this is just an excuse to "do-over" old WP:BLP , WP:RS , WP:VERIFIABILITY , WP:NPOV disputes that were settled properly months ago. There are no new arguments for her inclusion or the inclusion of deleted material thus far advanced, nor a new understanding of WP. Time to properly revisit the deletion review with an AfD. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think that this should go to AfD, then take it to AfD. Here's how. NB the instructions do start You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. There is of course abundant evidence in WP that this is easy enough for anybody to do. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You've already posted this information above. If I was going to AFD this, I would have done it by now. I know this article is important to Casprings, so I'm not going to, but someone else can if they like, of course. - Xcal68 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I was primarily addressing the IP. -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. The indenting (209's bullet) threw me off. - Xcal68 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is still that this article should redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. As the above discussion makes clear, Fluke is notable for only one event, thus WP:ONEEVENT applies here. The guidelines state: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." The event, in this case, is not significant enough to pass that threshold (the example used in the guidelines is "assassins of major political leaders"). Indeed, I don't even think it is close. I don't believe there is any realistic chance of making this a full and balanced biography given the lack of reliable sources, thus it should not exist, per WP:BLP and WP:ONEEVENT. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the above discussion makes it clear to you that Fluke is only notable for one event. It doesn't make it clear to me. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• RfCs are NOT to be used instead of going to Talk before editing. Casprings; the problems with the questionable material you keep wanting to include and the sourced material you want to exclude are all on the Talk and Talk:Archive pages. If you do not agree with what is said there, you need to say so THERE, and you need to defend and support your arguments with logic and with Sources and additional information, as other editors do. Please explain, as you have been asked repeatedly, how you can support going against prior consensus, and give arguments, not just state what you want (difference between a POV and an argument). Sandra Fluke's biography is just paper-thin. Period. Most average 30-somethings in the world don't have much encyclopedia-worthy biography either. There is basically one event in which she was a prop in House Democrats' political theater, and then a particularly unsubstantive fight with Limbaugh over this event and his highly inappropriate language. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Casprings, don't worry about the "notability" of sources, whatever that might mean. (For that matter, don't worry about the soapboxy aspects of the comment immediately above.) Instead, there could be questions about the noteworthiness of possible additional content and the reliability of sources adduced for this content. Now, what do you want to add? (Recycling it all here can get tedious, so feel free instead to cite diffs [and probably to make minor annotations to them].) -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• The basic issue is the IP editor suggests this edit is better:

Fluke graduated from Cornell University in 2003 and spent five years working for Sanctuary for Families, a New York-based nonprofit aiding victims of domestic violence.

And I suggest this edit is better

Fluke graduated from Cornell University in 2003 and spent five years working for Sanctuary for Families, a New York-based nonprofit aiding victims of domestic violence. She co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.

I do not see in a bio where a more robust bio is not justified and noteworthy. In my view, the IP is trying to add POV.

• "The IP" is insuring adherence to WP:BLP , namely WP:RS . If you are advocating that the rules of WP:BLP and WP:RS be circumvented, this is not the place for this RfC. WP rules are determinative, and you CANNOT violate WP rules by getting several people to say they "like" a WP violation. The first version meets WP:BLP and WP:RS, the second does not. You have yet to argue otherwise, as required.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Georgetown Law is a RS. You are yet to show why it isn't and one can't take bio facts from it. You made some asseration that she wrote it or her "PR" person. Yet, there is no proof of either. Casprings (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this link [1] , they have the ability to edit their own profiles (although, that may be a different profile?). Until shown otherwise, though, I have to agree with 209 on this one. I do not believe Georgetown Law is a RS for information. - Xcal68 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Your link is to how students can set up their profile to gain funding. The link posted is from the Georgetown law giving the bio of several students. That is a huge difference. Not even close to the same thing. Simple because a school does one thing does not mean that their bios of their students on their law school page is in doubt. It is under their news and press portion of their law school website. Casprings (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Think of it this way, then: It is not a vetted source of information. No matter how you slice it, not a RS. - Xcal68 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A WP:RS is reliable because of editorial supervision. There is none on the GT press site. Washington Post is a WP:RS, that doesn't mean you can quote reader comments ON the Post as WP:RS.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. All this language is overkill and hagiographic: "She co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence." It should not be in the article. Perhaps a mention that she was "involved in other such groups" would be okay. Speciate (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, at first glance "successfully" smacks of hagiography. But there is a difference between advocacy and successful advocacy. If somebody cofounded a group, why should this be generalized to "involved in"? (I recently wrote that Dorothy Bohm cofounded the Photographers' Gallery, because reliable sources told me that she did; how would it be an improvement to change "cofounded" to "was involved in"?) Further, a change from something more specific to "other such groups" invites a {{Vague}} tag, as you must surely be aware. Where is the hagiography? Too many of what are being killed in this article? -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You miss the point. There is ample evidence that she did not co-found and was not a member, and that this is a gross exaggeration that one might find on a 20-something with little work record's puffed-up CV for Law School, but which has no place in an encyclopedia. WP is governed by WP:RS.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Academic Sources are WP:RS because they are subject to peer review. Newspapers are WP:RS if they have editorial oversight. The blurb you use for 80% of the Bio and all of the contested inclusions has neither. A Georgetown Alumni notice is not subject to editorial review (like this), is self-reported (like this), and are frequently full of exaggeration and only more or less accurate information. They, as are promotional blurbs from the press office (which is called PR) are not WP:RS whether they come from Georgetown or George and Violet's School of Cosmetology and Bartending.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Casprings, your preferred version above consists of three sentences. The three sentences end with five footnotes. The first of these five is from law.georgetown.edu. The second to fifth are:

1. "Sandra Fluke". Huffington Post.
2. "Woman Called A ‘Slut’ By Rush Limbaugh Brings Message To Colorado". CBS.
3. "Past Public Interest Grant Recipients". Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles.
4. "Speakers and Honorees". National Or[g]anization of Women.

Do these back up the content of the three sentences? -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. They back up the content in dispute.Casprings (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, they don't. Working at Sanctuary for Families for 5 years is backed up by all sources, and there are several others that are better. Not in dispute. The co-found and MBP member stuff all sources to a "Meet the PIRG Scholars publicity blurb. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're really sure about this? It does rather seem that a couple of people hereabouts really, really don't want anything else to be said in the article about Fluke; perhaps each clause of your three sentences will need discrete sourcing (though no doubt there will be objections raised here to this too). -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not true that people want NOTHING more about Fluke. Have provided other possible SOURCED information that we could include. It is just the PARTICULAR unreliable (and AS DISCUSSED, probably false) information. The LA Women's Lawyers gave her a GRANT to make a video about domestic violence among GLBT young people, yet Casprings does not put the SOURCED part (the grant) but is edit warring to get the UNSOURCED part (prior life that LAWL knows nothing about) that is not WP:RS in. Makes no sense.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am certain. The Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, National Oranization of Women, and Georgetown link back up the disputed content in particular.Casprings (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• They quote the problematic Promo blurb (that, BTW, since the "Class of 2012" has graduated, has been taken down. During the course of 3 years at GT, the profiles were also incrementally changed as students added information)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I can create a paragraph with sentence having a cite if that would help, however. Casprings (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not really helpful, since in ADDITION to the WP:BLP and WP:RS issues that you have never addressed, we ALSO have consensus that this unreliable information should be removed. It has been up 72 hours, and needs to be closed, and should never have been opened--209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

IP, where did this "consensus" about removal of "unreliable information" suddenly arrive from? -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, IP, imagining a "consensus" in a talk page is one thing, but citing this imagined "consensus" in order to remove material from an article is another. Feel free either to engage in rational discussion (for which boldface and CAPITALS are very rarely needed) here, or of course to find some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this:

Fluke graduated from Cornell University in 2003 and worked in New York City for Sanctuary for Families, aiding victims of domestic violence and human trafficking.

[S]he co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which [. . .] successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. [She] was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.

While still at law school, Fluke "represented numerous victims of domestic violence and human trafficking" and also worked to help "child victims of domestic human trafficking" in Kenya.

Hoary (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Links removed from block quotation (see below). -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Classic BLP1E IMO - the person is not notable otherwise, and hence this should redirect to the controversy article. Collect (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• CONSENSUS

Remove

Xcal68

209.6.69.227

Kaldari

Speciate

ADD

Casprings

Hoary? Obvious opinion from other entries, but not stated. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How are you counting Kaldari and Speciate in the remove column. Kaldari basically says it shouldn't be an article because of one event and Speciate makes comments on the language, not whole sell removal.Casprings (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. No, I am not in favor of removing the material. The arguments for its removal are shaky. This does not mean that I'm entirely happy with the material. I've already tried to improve it, in the blue box above. I'm open to other suggestions for improvement. (Meanwhile, I have mentioned this article at WP:AN/EW.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What was your logic behind your suggested edit? In other words, what are you not happy with?Casprings (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One blazingly obvious problem with the previous version is that a large chunk of it is taken directly from this page of wlala.org. The specific page does not have, and the website does not seem to have, any notice releasing the content via either a usable Creative Commons license or the GFDL, let alone any notice releasing the content into the public domain. Incidentally, I've just now removed links from this material, because one shouldn't attribute links where they didn't exist. (If you want WP chapter-and-verse for this, then "Items within quotations should not generally be linked", though I think I've seen it discussed at more length elsewhere.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I would agree with your edit. Casprings (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So, it is now Unanimous that the incorrect info should be removed. In addition to being not a WP:RS, and having consensus that is unreliable/probably incorrect/non-notable , some editors also want it excluded on Copyright grounds. Yet it is still up.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Casprings agrees with an edit. Which edit -- removal of a chunk? No, the rewriting (by me, as it happens) of a chunk. The result of this rewriting is above. It does not appear to violate copyright. Where is the consensus that this rewritten version (which doesn't cite the Georgetown website) is unreliable, probably incorrect, or says something that isn't notable? -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary's comment. Casprings (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support deletion, on the basis of clear lack of independent notability. It'd be an exercise in futility to try and scare up instances of Ms Fluke's notability independently of the Rush Limbaugh episode. I tried - and it was futile. Please, let us set aside the politics of this and proceed according to Wiki rules on both notability and BLPs. -The Gnome (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Let me make it clear what my position is: I would prefer her article to be a redirect to the controversy article. Failing that, I would like all material that is direct or ultimately sourced to her school and its media removed. If it is not removed, it should be pared down to "involved in other such groups" since that is about all we can be certain. Speciate (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Embedded video

What's the justification for including the embedded video? It seems wholly unnecessary in illustrating the subject and the public domain licensing strikes me as dubious; is there proof that it was created by a federal employee (I know this belongs on the Commons page ideally)? Further, it seems as though everything has been done to promote and/or advertise other, unrelated content from the authors of the video. I don't generally support removal of content, but in my opinion, this does nothing to further the article at best and installs POV at worst.-RHM22 (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The video was made by federal employees. It was the Democrats on the committee. That makes it public domain. Moreover, it just provides what she was going to say. Not sure how that is POV.Casprings (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That first point isn't true. Having been made by a federal employee doesn't make something public domain unless it was made as part of their official duty. I don't see proof of that (or any statement as to the actual author) on the Youtube page. Aside from that, the entire Commons page reads like propaganda, right down to the title, which, although it was the Youtube title, seems inappropriate here. To my knowledge, there's no policy statement regarding using original titles for media when uploading to Commons. In fact, such ungainly titles would probably be discouraged anyway, regardless of POV concerns. As for its inclusion in the article, my main point is not that such creates a POV problem in and of itself, but that including it here is entirely unnecessary. Couple that with the potential issues concerning the video uploaded to Commons, and I think its a net negative. Most of my concern lies with the original upload to Commons, though, so I think it would be more effective for me to raise the issue there, which I'll do when I find the time.-RHM22 (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It was part of their official function, as they were Democratic staffer on the Committee. The video was made on government time and with government money. Thus, public domain. I fail to see how reading disallowed testimony creates a POV issue. Casprings (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Electoral campaigns - lots of chatter, few facts

Don't get me wrong, yes, there have been many posts of rumors, and fluffy commentary on blogs and social media campaign sites. Just warning not to get too far ahead of actual facts. Right now, there are no official candidates, just people who either have or have not filed with the California Democratic Party to ask for the endorsement of the State Party. The website is here [[2]] and to refer to the process, you can go here [[3]]. The endorsement process doesn't happen until Feb 9, and the deadline to which the Waxman seat filing articles referred was Jan 31, which is also the deadline for all other filings. Endorsement by the CA Dems isn't guaranteed, since she missed the deadline for the State seat, and doesn't live in the district, and the Party has legitimate local Candidates who might challenge her eligibility. When there is actual information, namely, Monday, have at it.Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Update. Still not much notable actual news, much primary source information. Failed to get Democrat endorsement at the pre-endorsment caucus in March. Now seat is going to a Primary (non-partisan) in June. Updates on campaign cash, [[4]], other candidates [[5]], routine stuff. Secretary of State filings indicate Fluke is refusing campaign funding, taking unrestricted outside money, but primary source. Official candidate in a real race, but crowded field.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for better profile photo for infobox

Sandra Fluke in 2013.

Suggestion of File:21 Leaders 2013 Honoree Sandra Fluke (8726552060) (cropped).jpg for better profile photo for infobox.

Sandra Fluke in 2013.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons now has several other photos that could possibly be used for the article, arranged at commons:Category:Sandra Fluke and commons:Category:Sandra Fluke-related images. Hopefully that's helpful to other editors, — Cirt (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Opponents' criticism of DNC speech

Her speech was criticized by opponents as an example of the Democrats' desire to avoid focusing on the economy and catering to their base.

Can anyone confirm that this material is in fact supported by the sources? A lot of material in the section on Obama's reelection seemed to be original research, drawing inferences not explicitly stated by any source. See recent changes here. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, the local sensationalist tabloid Boston Herald isn't a valid source for biographies of living persons, in my opinion. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't confirm that the Boston Herald (non?) story says what our article claims that it says, because the BH web server is currently indisposed and won't serve up the page. If it does say this, then should it be discounted as the mere witterings of a local sensationalist tabloid? The website at least looks like that of a newspaper, and our article says that it has even won pullet surprises. This article gives space to Limbaugh, whose own emissions, I'd suggest, tell us nothing about Fluke even if they say a certain amount about him. Is the BH less worthy of serious attention than Limbaugh? And if it's sensationalist, shouldn't the article about it say so? -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for the Boston Herald does specify that the paper's several Pulitzer Prizes (or pullet surprises, if you prefer) were awarded to the paper before it converted to tabloid format in 1981. It says that the Herald's last Pulitzer (for writing, not photography) was in 1954. My impression is that the paper today is a much different paper than the one which garnered those awards. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

But I don't think that one can draw an analogy to Rush Limbaugh's comments here. This article only mentions those comments because they were reported by The Huffington Post, The BBC, CBS, and The Washington Post. The citations are to those sources, not to Limbaugh or his show. And the last three of them, at least, are much more reliable and mainstream than The Boston Herald, in my opinion. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Those are all reasonable points. I attempted to look at the WashPo piece, but it wanted my email address. I therefore pressed Ctrl-U and looked in the (grotesquely bloated) source of the page. The content of this chatty and slight piece is visible. (Search within the source for the string "giving her cough drops when her voice cracked".) Well, it presents an apparent death wish from Roger Stone and insults from Jonah Goldberg and Ann Coulter. But no, I don't see there that her speech was "criticized by opponents as an example of the Democrats' desire to avoid focusing on the economy and catering to their base". -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research — I tried to read the article, but hit the paywall. Since I'm editing on a tablet, I don't have the benefit of Ctrl+U. (Update: I did a search for the title of the Herald piece, which appears to have been a simple op-ed piece. So it wouldn't be suitable for inclusion as a factual source about a living person anyway. 06:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)) —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)