Jump to content

Talk:Sharon Presley/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Libertarian Party

Wiki prides itself on working very hard to have accurate information. This is all to the good. However someone with the IP number 69.255.17.112 took it upon themselves to add a category to my page which was false information, claiming that I was a member of the Libertarian Party. However, I do not know if this person is connected with Wiki in any way since it is an IP number not a registered name.

So for the record, I have never been a member of the Libertarian Party and I do not appreciate someone claiming that I am. Since it is untrue, the person clearly had no such information and acted irresponsibly in putting that category on my page.

Wiki is both a blessing and a curse. I will continue to monitor this page for screwups, while hoping for the best. :)

SPresley 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


The last paragraph in the article, the one referring to a book I do not advertise, was not added with my knowledge. However since it is substantively true, I have let it remain. Conditions of the legal settlement prevent me from saying anymore. However, if anyone sees a book with my name on it that does not appear in my bibliography, it does not reflect my writing or my views.

SPresley 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear SPResley, your comments support the primary criticism regarding your edits. I suggest you read over Wikipedia's guidelines. All edits must stand alone without the need to verify the identity of the editor. That is why there is no original research. Edits based on personal knowledge are original research. The tendency to do this is one reason an article's editor should not be the same as the article's subject.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
But the above is not to disparage that it was acceptable for her to request removal of, or even remove, information with no source, like being the member of some organization. Also, in the case of the book her complaint might spur some editor to find some reliable source that she might not know about that might explain/clarify the problem with the book she mentioned. For example, someone might have a confidentiality agreement in a legal settlement, but then some how the the information of what was made confidential might be leaked some how and be reported in ten newspapers, thereby verifying whatever the subject of the article was complaining about. Maintaining a good Wikipedia reputation is more easily done by trying to accommodate subjects of articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Templates Removed

I have been able to source the content and have removed the need for the templates placed on this article.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor job of deleting material

I am going through those recent edits and see a lot of material was deleted that is in the sources and is of relevance and interest to general readers - as well as editors who found her of note at the AfD. I'll reorganize it slightly with a clearer indication of which publication said what. One must be as careful in deleting as one must be in adding material. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Poor job of adding material

I've given a quick look and cleaned up the worst of the misrepresentations, undue and SYNTHy content recently added here. Please be careful not to go beyond what the sources say. The worst of the errors are gone now, but the sourcing is still extremely weak and there is nothing currently in the article to suggest that this is a notable individual. Please continue to express your concerns on talk. SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with recent edits

  • This diff -SPECIFICO says Presley "aroused" by reading Rand. Obviously snide and sexually evocative language.
  • This diff SPECIFICO ignores what source says that Presley and her boyfriend "Spearheaded ALA". If you want full details fine, change it to: She was radicalized when her boyfriend, who in the 1960s was leader of one of the first national libertarian organizations, the Alliance of Libertarian Activists, was arrested in Berkeley, California. Together they made the group successful enough to get their own office.
  • Remove what source says "which was a center of libertarian activism. Do we need more sources? I saw that elsewhere as well.
  • At this diff you removed "center for libertarian activism" when source said "center for libertarian discussion". I didn't want to plagarize or quote. Why not just be collaborative and suggest alternate language?
  • remove Stanley Milgram description. It could have been worded in a shorter form, but if people known for BAD things can be described per their articles, so can people known for notable things.
  • This diff - the source talks about both research and teaching. Again, better wording possible, but why delete it entirely?
  • Here per below she is currently LISTED as executive director; the web page photo description conflates her past position as coordinator with current one; obviously they need to fix that. It's clear what her current position is.
  • Views section only needed cause you erroneously erased ALF paragraph.
  • This diff source says "book catalog and book review magazine" - it was both. Maybe we should use their exact working, but no good reason to change it to dismissive "worked on promotional materials".
  • This diff, ok, there's a difference between Klatch and website. Obviously they need more details. Like Nathan said let's start it and Sharon said, OK! at the same lunch or whatever the case may be... That's in email too...

These issues can be dealt with... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please review the applicable policies which required these edits. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
There are issues which are judgement calls within policy, so please don't be so dismissive on a discussion page. I think you are "competent" enough to figure out the difference in the above listing and explain why you think your edit is better than my suggestion or correction. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Riggenbach LVMI book review unnotable?

Re this diff saying " who cares? Riggenbach is non-notable & LvMI bloody well should be)". If LVMI is notable, their publishing a review is. Please explain or it will be reverted. I think at WP:RSN others would agree its notable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

He has stated the reason for the revert. Do not threaten an edit war. Please respond to the statement in his edit summary. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
A) I stated the problem, that LVMI being notable makes the review notable and B) Per WP:BRD Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion" and C) it's generally agreed that if an individual fails over a period of time to respond the presumption is they accept your view and it can be reverted. Sorry if I said it short form, assuming the editor knew that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
However, even more instructive is this from Wikipedia:EW#Handling_of_edit-warring_behaviors. If, despite trying, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm. In fact I believe I and another editor had to quote that policy to SPECIFICO a few months ago when he was refusing to engage in discussion of our problems with his edits. Though I think the first step is to ask the editor to respond on their user talk page. Next to wait a week and, if the editor does not disagree with one's argument, and no one else opines, revert. Rather than bother others with what maybe a drive by edit or one the editor doesn't choose to defend. Often the editor has moved on and is not even watching the page so no report to WP:EW is necessary. And of course one can always do a WP:RSN, RfC, etc. as relevant if no one will respond at all. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It was not I who did the revert. I was the one who had added the content, but @Sitush: reverted it and I am asking you to discuss with him the content disagreement and not threaten EW. Please strike your remarks about me, which do not belong here. I am prepared to seek enforcement of Community Sanctions against you. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I refuse to get involved in this until CMDC retracts the usual gung-ho personal attacks. Enough is enough. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO: You were [Added later per editor's request: I perceived you as] stating that his edit summary was sufficient and a person didn't have to discuss anything at talk page. You have not answered my concerns on other issues above in Talk:Sharon_Presley#Problems_with_recent_edits which was the context for my reminding you - which I had meant to mention there but forgot.
Sitush: What is a personal attack? I'm just trying to correct my own incorrect assumption based on many editors' comments on when it's ok to revert when there's been no reply to content discussions. It's not an attack to note that editors should discuss disagreements. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Obfuscation and faux dim wittedness again? Forget it, Carol. I'm fed up of dealing with you. Do what the hell you like and I'll see you at Arbcom. - Sitush (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Since the originator of the material and the reverter don't want to discuss it and I don't want to be accused of edit warring after my faux pas above, I'll bring it to WP:RSN later tomorrow if necessary. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Not notable

Notability is not demonstrated by the fringe sources cited in this piece. Are there any citations of Presley in notable RS? Steeletrap (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't a bit strange you would show up on this obscure article the day after I edit it. I know you aren't happy I've protested your explicitly stating dislike of libertarians and making all sorts of questionable edits that had to be brought repeatedly to noticeboards, including ANI about refusing to stop harassing me on my talk page. But isn't tag teaming to make sure I no longer edit the past BLPs I complained about enough for you? User:Carolmooredc 18:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Carol, please strike your personal attack questioning my motives. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you have some other reason for coming to this "non-notable" individuals article the day after I edited it? User:Carolmooredc 20:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Sharon Presley was pointed out to me by a peer as one that needs work, and quite possibly deletion on grounds of lack of notability. I've had my eye on it for weeks. Steeletrap (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
So your faculty advisor is Specifico? User:Carolmooredc 14:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added a few RS citations. Will add more if I find them.--JayJasper (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

New-extended WP:RS

Here editor added these refs:

The Klatch book already used as a reference discusses the life choices, experiences and views of Presley quite a bit, offering them as examples on pages 51–52, 69–70, 82, 84, 93, 118, 150, 152, 162, 269, 273, 286, 296 and 307. A book which is not yet used as a reference is Rita Mae Kelly's A Generation Divided: The New Left, the New Right, and the 1960s. Kelly talks about Presley in the book's introduction, devoting two paragraphs to a study by Presley and her co-authors about Mormon feminism. Reason magazine interviewed her and put the video on their website as "Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism". AOL and Huffington Post also hosted this same video. Joan Kennedy Taylor says that Presley was very influential to Taylor's career, through her role in the Association of Libertarian Feminists (Reclaiming the Mainstream, page 7, ISBN 0879757175 ). Taylor also cites Presley's works "Government is Women's Enemy" and "Suzanne LaFollette". Author John F. Welsh writes about Presley's introduction to The Anarchists, spending a paragraph of his book After Multiculturalism on her ideas. Professor Jennifer Burns discusses Presley in Goddess of the Market, saying she was "one of the few women to become active in the libertarian movement" and thus was a standout example.[1] These sources show that Presley has influence, has been cited, has had her ideas analyzed and quoted.
ight have a few more to add. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful. Please do incorporate the material into the article. I'd WP:DIY, but at present other fish are frying. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Too busy myself for constructive editing, especially of articles that might be AfD'd. (Though I think I'd appeal this one.) But it's on my ever growing list. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Srich, "Other fish are frying?" I think you'd put it better with "other geese are cooking." SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

More sources

Moving Binksternet's list over from AfD page. Haven't had a chance to look at them all yet.

End list. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

December AfD Error

The December AfD was recently closed by Lankiveil as "keep", erroneously in my opinion. Let me give a synopsis of why, at best, the conclusion should have been "no consensus". Essentially, there seems to be confusion and misleading arguments regarding the sources and whether they support notability, as well as the usual indicators of notability for scholars in terms of citations and/or institutional holdings. The points are:

  • Presley's holdings and citations are much lower than those of most of the undisputedly notable scholars on WP, the latter whose figures typically number in the multiple hundreds. This alone is an enormous red flag for any scholar blp AfD.
  • References are a mess. Problems include more than a third of the references being repeats, use of many non-WP:RS like her CV and other web-pages, ISBN for a book which evidently does not exist, and trivial mentions. Two purportedly important sources discussed by advocates in the AfD are not even part of the article (more on these next).
  • There seems to have been appreciable confusion in the AfD regarding sources that discuss Presley substantively (i.e. being essentially a bio on her and supporting GNG) versus those that cite her work, contain her work, or merely mention her briefly over the course of several sentences. The two main sources in this context are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) and the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism (EoL), both of which were argued to be more supportive of Presley's notability than what they actually are – a few cases in point from AfD discussion: (1) EoL "has an entry devoted to Sharon Presley, on page 414" and echoed by "having an entry in an encyclopedia published by a major publisher" – these imply there is a bio on her. In actuality, this points to the EoL bio of Ayn Rand which merely contains the statement "libertarian writers such as [list that includes Presley] have applauded Rand's contribution..." (2) "SEP is the gold standard...she is considered by the top authors in the field to have contributed something worth commenting upon in a resource that is used by the vast majority of..." – in actuality there are only a few cites and short quotes. I submit that, although these are tertiary sources, such mentions amount only to individual citations of her work, i.e. as are more typical of primary (journal articles) and secondary (usually books) sources. Under these circumstances, scholar-specific guidelines reaquire hundreds of such citations, which simply do not exist in this case.
  • A new "list of sources" submitted in the AfD that seem mostly to have trivial mentions, but which are implied to collectively prove notability. As far as I'm aware, this has never been a successful argument in AfDs.

My sense from reviewing the AfD is that there was not an especially detailed, careful, or critical assessment of the points I have made above. Oftentimes we see bios that are obviously and indisputably "keep" or "delete" and those are very simple cases. Borderline cases, such as Presley, require much more care and argumentative dissection, which did not appear to occur here. Agricola44 (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC).

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. It is permitted to appeal the close, via established WP channels. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You can take the matter to WP:DRV, but it is suggested that you talk to the closing admin first. I was a keep !vote, and I can see the reasons for closing as keep, and think it was a valid close, but as the closing admin noted, she realized it would probably be a controversial close, and it seems like she did attempt to read through all the arguments. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave that for other interested parties. I only stumbled across this because I lurk at academics AfDs. There was a push under misleading/confusing circumstances to keep this article, mostly under the guise of SEP and EoL being appreciably overstated. This is the sort of thing that saddens me because it reiterates the weakness of WP being based on "consensus" rather than "substance". Best! Agricola44 (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC).

ALF

We have no secondary RS to verify that ALF is anything more than a web page today. We have a source which attributes its founding to Torie Nathan. The web page of ALF is states in one place that SP is national coordinator and in another that she's director. Until we have some resolution of this matter, the content should not be in the article. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

First, let's talk about the sources in this version instead of making vague comments:
  • Klatch: Nathan and Presly together formed ALF [2] What source are you talking about leading you to remove that material??
  • Second, one error on the current ALF web page is no reason to delete all material including the past. The listing that says "Executive Director"; the description under the photos says "past and present national coordinator." Someone got sloppy, obviously. I sent an email. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Your WP:OR is not a substitute for well-sourced WP content. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, it's not OR to fail to see inconsistencies between sources. Second, I see per above section that further elaboration between Klatch as source and webpage needed. Nevertheless, no reason to remove that Nathan started organization and Presley is LISTED as exec director, even if description under photos fudges past vs. current titles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
WP does not publish "fudge" in article text. Don't forget BLP. Caution is advised. We have no current source to verify that this "ALF" is currently more than an ill-edited relic web page. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
That is still no excuse for not discussing what to do about the earlier refs as to her role in creating it and her past role as coordinator. She emailed back she's out of town til after the second and can't deal with website issues until then. Plus if you don't trust the website, we better use Klatch's info now, right? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, today I got an email that explains that a) Nathan founded it in 1973 as a local group and then in 1975 it was organized as a national group with Presley as natl coordinator, which is what Klatch was referring to. That will be clarified in web page soon and the article can be corrected. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

So, let's get this straight. Your testimony is that you solicited the subject of the article to edit her self-published personal history on that web site so that you can then put that non-RS reference, re-written as you requested, to support your narrative in the Wikipedia article? Verrrry interesting approach. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What's doubly disturbing about your report from the front lines, @Carolmooredc: is that it confirms that Klatch got the facts wrong in her book. That weakens the credibility of all the content cited to the Klatch reference and it has dire implications for the article as a whole. We now know that it was Nathan alone who was the founder and yet Klatch botched the historical facts. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources

So, I really don't want this page to turn into an edit war, and despite being relatively involved in the AfD, I have done my best to stay out of the content dispute here, because I find libertarian thought to be rather boring, and it is not something I want to devote my time to. All that being said, the most recent revert [3] seems to remove sourced material that can be accessed by anyone with an internet connection. I'm assuming good faith here, so I would like to get some more context as to why this was removed? I feel that since the source clearly mentions her teaching, the revert was uncalled for, but am interested to see the reasoning behind this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The book was written when SP was still teaching, 15 years ago. She retired and she is no longer teaching. She was only a part time lecturer, not a noteworthy academic, and whatever she might have been discussing in the classroom prior to her retirement seems undue. It seems innocuous to imagine that she currently remains engaged in research and advocacy, although we really should have current independent RS for that, as well. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Right, but it seems to me that the usage of the past-tense (as in the diff above) communicates that she is no longer a professor. I am not saying that she was an all-star academic, but it does seem that if a source does mention that her teaching focused on these things, it does seem reasonable to include it as a past-tense activity in her article. Again, I don't have a vested interest in her. I just feel that those who do should have the chance to make the article as strong as possible within policy, and it seems that allowing the inclusion of a sourced fact does help improve the quality of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Nothing controversial in your view, Ballioni, but since Presley is not notable for her academic role, it's really not clear why we should dwell on such material long out of date. It seems undue to me. SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Because this seems to have gotten pretty contentious and there are only a limited number of editors involved (all of whom were also involved at the AfD) I opened and request for comment below this to get some outside input. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Source discusses Presley research

RE:This revert of my correction re-adding research, without the editor starting any discussion here. Note that Klatch on page 286 discusses Presley research, para 2 sentences 4 and 5. I hope I won't have to type them out here. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to -- and aren't even advised to -- ask for permission before making a bold edit. Nonetheless, you are correct as regards the Klatch source, so I reverted my change. Steeletrap (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO reverts again. Here, writing Removing unsourced content. Would that be that I said "focused" instead of "focuses"? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Still waiting for SPECIFICO to explain what was wrong with the edit he reverted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_Presley/Archive_1&oldid=1119922792"