Jump to content

Talk:Susan RoAne

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

I was right

[edit]

The creator of this page (scoringgoals14) *is* a paid editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277 . Benboy00 (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False claim of consensus

[edit]

An editor recently restored some listing of places where the subject had been quoted, local radio interviews, and the not-quite-accurate claim of being a "favorite speaker of meeting planners", claimnig in the edit summary that this was "relevant to notability per consensus of recent AfD". Problem is, no such consensus was made. The editor that restored this material appeared to be the only one to have made any claim that this material was of value, and even an editor supporting a "keep" noted "almost all of the "Background" section, including the whole 2nd paragraph is blatant advert and should be deleted." There was not consensus that the subject is notable, much less that the location of quotes was relevant. We should delete all of that. --05:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't delete reliable independent sources that discuss the topic in depth. The sources are not advertisements or PR as you incorrectly claim - they are reliable sources (newspapers) which are independent of the topic (journalists). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the material you reinserted do not generally discuss the topic in depth. The grand total of what the Wall Street Journal says about RoAne is "Susan RoAne, who writes and lectures about networking skills". Globe and Mail has three sentences about her at the start of the article. The Tribune? "Susan RoAne, San Francisco-based author of "The Secrets of Savvy Networking: How To Make the Best Connections for Business and Personal Success" (Warner Books, $11.99)." The NEw York Times? " Susan RoAne, the author of “How to Work a Room,”"... even if you include the quoting of her, it's two sentences. Entrepeneur? "Best-selling author Susan RoAne reads the sports pages every day -- even though she absolutely hates sports. Why? She says it's because groups of men always talk about sports when she's at networking events. She doesn't want to be left out of the conversation." And later it mentions the name of one of her books. The entire Cosmo piece linked to? Two sentences. Being quoted for a sentence somewhere is trivia, not a fact that earns a space in the article.
Besides, we do not link to sources because they discuss the topic in depth; we link to sources because they reliably verify information that we want in the article... and as I noted, this isn't that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can be 5 words, and context matters. A mathematical count of words pulled out of context is a logical fallacy. We include sources because they convey information that is significant and not trivial. It is significant that this individual and/or her works has been quoted/referenced as an expert/person of knowledge (or item of note) in multiple reliable sources. They help establish the persons notability and that is part of the reason we includes sources and information in an article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, if the claim that you are making is that it is "in depth", then it cannot be five words. That is inherently shallow. No, we do not "include sources because they convey information that is significant and not trivial", we include sources because they verify the information in the article (that an article contain significant amounts of information that is not in the article may be a good reason for an external link.) In this case, the information that they are used to support - that she was quoted in Cosmo, for example - proves to be trivial, which is a reason for it not to be in the article in the first place. We do not have a third-party source indicating that the existence of these quotes is significant, and it does do not appear to be so.
Also, to correct another earlier false statement of yours, I did not claim that the sources were advertising or PR. I quoted someone else, and even the person I was quoting was not making that claim. He was claiming that the material in our article was "advert", and the sources do not have to be advertising in nature to be used in an advertisement; any movie ad that quotes a movie review is engaging in citing non-advertising to create advertising. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that in order to include a third party reliable source, we need another third party reliable source to verify that the information in the first source is significant? That's an arbitrary hurdle and roadblock to development. The significance of these sources is self-evident, they are verification of what is stated. The only argument one can make is that the statement itself is not significant, however I disagree because it is part of what makes the entire article notable, and notability is significant for Wikipedia. As for being an "advert", that's a negative perspective, simply because we link to sources, reviews, etc.. that are non-critical, or even positive, doesn't make it an advert. The sources are not adverts, the language in the article is not an advert. --Green Cardamom (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
for the statement "She was quoted in Cosmo", Cosmo is simply not a third-party source, but is rather a party in the fact being stated. If we were using Cosmo as a source for the name of a book she had written, then they are a third-party source. Cosmo is a reliable enough source to be adequate reference for the fact that they were quoting her, as that would not seem to be a particularly controversial or self-serving statement. That doesn't mean that the quote is significant.
You put forth a rather circular notability argument, that these citations must be significant because they make the article notable, and that the subject must be notable because the statements are significant. Well, this article recently went before AFD where notability was not firmly established even with these statements in place; the AFD came to no conclusion even with the participation of an editor we now know to be problematic.
As for whether the word "advert" applies, perhaps that is an argument you should have with the person who actually invoked that word, the editor I quoted simply to show that your claim for a consensus found in the AFD had zero basis. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content Removal

[edit]

This was already removed (after it was added by the publicist) because it is extremely insignificant, and is certainly considered advertising. Benboy00 (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just make clear, I didnt remove any references that we're being quoted in the article. Green Cardamom is the one who change the article to its current form. I just removed the "additional references" that were taking up 3/4 of the page. Then I reverted to that version of the page. Benboy00 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You removed all the referenced places she has been published at. She is notable for being a writer, so mentioning what newspapers and magazines she has written for, is something that should be in the article.[1] Dream Focus 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to individually list them by name. In fact, considering the currently limited encyclopedic content about the subject here, doing so gives such information undue weight. I therefore propose paring it back to "She has been published in numerous magazines and newspapers, and has been called in to speak on national radio programs." She's also been on the telly, but we don't seem to currently have a source for that. What do people think? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has she been called in to speak on national radio programs? The current material just notes interviews with two local NPR affiliates; they do not appear to be shows that were distributed nationally. I'm not sure that a local radio interview rises to being "due". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More coverage of this writer

[edit]

Unencyclopedic Content

[edit]

In my view, much of the current article is unencyclopedic, basically promotional material, e.g.

  • "she has spoken at the..."
  • "She has been published in..."
  • "She has also been heard on..."

which does not belong...makes art look like a CV. There is also unsourced material (e.g. where she went to high school) that should be removed, since this is a BLP. Thoughts? Agricola44 (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The reference for the high school was one sentence later... I fixed it, and moved it to the appropriate place. Sancho 18:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The references currently used to support "she has spoken at...", "she has been published in...", and "she has been heard on..." are primary sources with respect to these statements. We're looking at the fact that she's been published, and then stating that here, instead of referencing a secondary source that has also made that observation. The problem is potentially giving undue weight to these items, since we aren't using a secondary source to guide us in what to include or exclude in this listing. I don't think policy has a clear answer to what we should do, but I think these are the concerns that any discussion should focus on: preference for secondary sources, avoiding undue weight when relying on primary sources. Sancho 18:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more, it seems like we're doing original research by creating this listing. Mentioning that she's written a book in the lead is different. There, a secondary source did an article/review of her book. That secondary source noticed her book, decided it warranted coverage, and then we referenced that secondary source. In this case, her speaking events, publications, and radio interviews haven't been mentioned any sources secondary to the events, publications, or interviews. We are the first ones to note these events/publications/interviews as being worthy of mention. We are the ones performing the selection. Sancho 18:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that this is "unencyclopedic content". For example, we do not give exhaustive lists of journals a scientist has published in, radio shows on which a panelist has appeared, venues a band has played, and so forth. Instead, we note/summarize accomplishments, using a subset of sources (typically mixture of primary and secondary) to support these statements. In other words, I'm not criticizing the sources, but rather the very text of the article itself. We cannot say, in effect, that her activities/accomplishments consist of simply having spoken here and been heard there. Agricola44 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • I think I'm agreeing with you, but for a different reason in that I think we could "say, in effect, that her activities/accomplishments consist of simply having spoken here and been heard there", if a secondary source did first. Sancho 19:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid this is not the type of thing a trained writer or journalist tends to do in a secondary source because they also write for the purpose of saying something substantive, as we should be doing here. If we can't, then there's nothing to say here and perhaps the article should be stubbed with just what's in the lede. Agricola44 (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'd want to give a bit of time before taking that route. I put a notice up on the page, and this discussion is pretty easy to find. I would suggest waiting a few days. It's not material that's violating WP:BLP or anything. Sancho 21:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. I'm not so much concerned about the timetable, but rather the act itself of stubbing of the article. After such an involved AfD, this seems likely to rankle some feathers. However, if one accepts the premise that the article actually has to say something substantive, there seems to be little choice. Agricola44 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Sentence unsupported by reference

[edit]

"She is known for her business networking self-help books". This sentence cites the following references:

Those references don't support the assertion that she is known for her business networking self-help books. The first one supports her having business self-help books. The second is irrelevant to this sentence. I'm going to change this sentence, but wanted to leave explanation here. Sancho 18:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrase / copyvio

[edit]

The text,

She has a Master's Degree from San Francisco State University and a bachelor's from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A former teacher, she has spoken at the University of Texas School of Law and an NYU alumni event.

matches too closely the original source (http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2008/031808_susan_roane.html),

RoAne received her master’s degree from San Francisco State University and her bachelor’s from the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, where she was recently honored at “Authors Come Home.” A former teacher, Susan also lectures at major universities such as Yale, Wharton, University of Chicago, and NYU.

The wording, sequence of ideas (master's, then bachelor's, then "a former teacher", then listing of speaking events), is too close to the original source. I'm going to delete it to force a re-write.

See Wikipedia:Plagiarism for guidance on avoiding close paraphrase, or attributing it if necessary. Sancho 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seriously? How many ways can you mention her master's degree than her bachelor degree? You check articles for anyone, and that's what they do, list where they got one from, followed by the next. The part about "a former teacher", should be reworded of course. But the first sentence is fine. Dream Focus 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that its already to use primary sources for certain information, like proving someone has written professionally for various newspapers and magazines. So I removed that pointless tag. Dream Focus 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remain civil. Yes, I'm serious. We took the exact order of information from that source and marginally changed the wording. My point with the primary sources tag was to encourage finding secondary sources that confirm the importance of that particular selection of writings/interviews/etc that we've included. Sancho 00:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_RoAne&oldid=1198614866"