Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

A quick new page on an academic, perhaps noted more in the media than via academic work, so far. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC))

COI, advert

The tone of "how to find" her articles, and the overall content seems a little too advert like with far too much use of primary sources. I noticed the article has a WP:SPA editor User:MdeBohun who appears to have a WP:COI. Widefox; talk 23:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Book dedication

Can we please have a discussion here? Woodroar (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

conflicted user header on article

I looked over the story and removed any content that appeared unreferenced and promotion and then removed the conflicted header. If anyone objects please explain what benefit that header still has regarding the content now left in the story, ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

notability and sources

Whoever thinks she is not worth a story on wiki should open that discussion. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (May 2014) This older point was ok and did not require any headers? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzannah_Lipscomb&diff=608234184&oldid=607500424 perhaps better for the person to get this deleted ? Mosfetfaser (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the last ok story, I don't see anything wrong with it. If she does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines please start a page for that chat Mosfetfaser (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

there is an apparent consensus here that Lipscomb is not a reliable source for content about herself and such claims require third party verification for us to include.

And there is no substitute for WP:GNG except for providing third party coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"there is an apparent consensus here that Lipscomb is not a reliable source for content about herself" - User:TheRedPenOfDoom - I don't see that consensus, where is it? she is imo a good source for simple truths about her life story - Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Suzannah_Lipscomb] it has been declared that there is a consensus that she is not a reliable source for the simple truth that she was married. if she is not a valid source for that simple truth, then she is not for anything else either. but no matter how reliable she is for content about herself, her declarations about herself have zero impact upon whether or not others have found her worthy of covering. That is still severely lacking.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

that discussion is meaningless to her notability - and irrelevant to her ability to source simple facts about her life - deleting and templating her because you lost that discussion is laughable and a violation of WP:BLP- LIVING PERSON Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"that discussion is meaningless to her notability" -- uhh, yes, that is what I said "but no matter how reliable she is for content about herself, her declarations about herself have zero impact upon whether or not others have found her worthy of covering. That is still severely lacking." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

When the consensus is that Lipscomb is not a reliable source content about her own life, then applying that consensus is absolutely NOT a violation of BLP which requires NPOV application and only the highest quality of reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

attacking this person repeatedly calling her not notable and templating her repeatedly is a vio of WP:blp - so lets remove this story then Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

ROFL - please actually read WP:BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: @Mosfetfaser: can you figure out where did TheRedPenOfDoom attacked the person? And @TheRedPenOfDoom: if you believe that this person is not notable, you can try Afd. OccultZone (Talk) 15:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

book dedication to her husband

this is trivia - it is being edit war into the story, I have no idea why - it is referenced to a google book link - it is not noteworthy -

She dedicated her 2012 book, A Visitor's Companion to Tudor England, to her husband Drake.

http://books.google.com/books?id=UFSI-Nc_cQcC&pg=PT2%7Caccessdate=26 April 2014|date=2013-06-04|publisher=Pegasus Books|isbn=9781453298909|pages=2–

Please discuss reasons for inclusion in the life story - ta - I told the edit war user of this chat - User:Katieh5584 .. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katieh5584&diff=prev&oldid=60680993319:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC) - they just deleted it - I also left a note of this discussion for another multiple inserter of the disputed content User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom&diff=prev&oldid=606816862

it is also a sales link - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Information regarding spouses isn't trivia, but the context in which it's mentioned here is problematic. Ideally we need a third party source for personal information like this. Who's to say whether Drake is actually his given name or a nickname? We should leave this out unless she decides to give an in-depth interview about herself. Also, the birth date has crept in, which was previously removed because it couldn't be verified. This is Paul (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's gone. As I indicated in my summary, it's not only trivia (which we have no problem with removing on a simple courtesy basis) but it's also original research, since it's sourced to the book itself. If this is a major aspect of the subject's life and work I'm sure we can find secondary sources to support it - otherwise I see no reason to keep it around. Let's not sweat the petty things (or pet the sweaty things). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

1) As a "dedication:" it is trivia. As a marker of a life event that we cover in every biography, it is a life event that we cover in every biography. We dont censor peoples life events because they now wish they had made different choices.

2) It is in NO WAY original research to state that she dedicated a book to her husband when the book clearly shows she dedicated the book to her husband.

3) yes of course she is a reliable source for what and who she dedicated her book to, unless you are implying that she lied about having a husband. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As a "dedication:" it is trivia. You revert warred to the limit to keep this rubbish in the article, you seem to be usually smart, not certain what your issue is with this living person... it is a clear sales link also - needs to stay out - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

googlebooks is not a sales link - they do not sell book. they are a courtesy link that allow people to actually see and verify the source content and are used in probably half or more of the articles on the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

it is a sales link - click on anything and buy her books - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UFSI-Nc_cQcC&pg=PT2%7Caccessdate%3D26&redir_esc=y - User :TheRedPenOfDoom do you dispute that it is possible to buy the stories books from this link? http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UFSI-Nc_cQcC&pg=PT2%7Caccessdate%3D26&redir_esc=y - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

googlebooks is not a sales link. they may link to places where you can buy the books and if you think that a site that links to a site that sells something counts as a sales link and a not appropriate source, well then there will be no links to any sources! Please go make your case at the policy page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with TRPoD -- putting all other issues aside, Googlebooks is definitely not a commercial site in this context; it has a perfectly informative usage which our readers might very well find useful and the fact that Google supports the project through incidental trafficking links to services which themselves sell the book is not really significantly germane; Googlebooks is used as a a locale for sources and an otherwise useful external links in I-don't-know-how-many Wikipedia articles. This is clearly a WP:SNOW issue. Snow talk 20:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an ANI thread about this, TRPoD - if you're going to deny this trivial courtesy to the subject or nitpick the definition of OR, might as well do it over there and see what everyone thinks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I get it now, a wikia editor doesn't like the idea that the person the story is about is not wanting mention of her estranged spouse in the story and the wikia editors don't like that and so they edit war to keep the factoid in the story referenced to a single google book sales link. Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

your incorrect assertion about googlebooks being a sales link and therefore an invalid source is just one of the many incorrect assertions which invalidates your statement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom Your edit warring to include the fact that she dedicated a book to her husband refereed to a single google books link just becauce the story owner objected is excessive to say the least - its been took down now anyways Mosfetfaser (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

your fixation on the "dedication" is the another aspect of why your assertions are incorrect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts to this. Whether or not Lipscomb wishes she'd made different personal choices is of no consequence to the content of this article. The majority of people who get divorced probably feel the same way about the person they married in happier times, but that doesn't mean details of a failed marriage should be erased from the public domain. What is important here, however, is whether we can reference it with a reliable, third party source, and a personal dedication in a book is regarded as a primary source, so not suitable as a reference in an encyclopedia. Interestingly, Google Books are used in plenty of links (I've used them myself, in fact), but I've never encountered something of this nature before. If she takes the view that is suggested about her marriage then it's unlikely she'll ever speak candidly about her personal life, meaning no reliable source to use here. Therefore, let's leave it out. This is Paul (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

One more for "leave it out without better sources". Yes, it's absolutely true that for most people a marriage is (a) noncontroversial, and (b) very important to their bio. But in this case, it seems that (a) her marriage is controversial, and (b) her marriage has been ignored by Wikipedia:reliable sources. So WP:BLP applies. Unless we get some better sources for the marriage, we should also leave it out. (BTW, there are a few blogs on the web that do mention the wedding, the date, and Drake's last name; but they're blogs. We need better than that.) --GRuban (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Clear "leave it out". Many books have a dedication, often to a family member. There is nothing remarkable about this, it is not worth mentioning in an article about an author.

dispute resolution

for those interested in whether or not the marriage be covered, please join the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Suzannah_Lipscomb. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia contributor, MdeBohun

In the header it claims - A Wikipedia contributor, User:MdeBohun (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

WP:SPI does not exist for this claim - what allowance for the addition of this header is there within wikia rules? what is the benefit or relation to the current published story for the reader? Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the header - it was pure speculation, and there is no benefit to the reader and not confirmed by wikia investigation - the article has also since any edits from the claimed writer been heavily edited Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No one was suggesting they were a sockpuppet? Only that they're editing pattern suggested they had a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If the suggestion is that they are the person in the story? then a wp:spi or a wp:coi report is required for such a claim - what content in the article that user wrote do you think is now problematic? Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the user admitted they edited "at the request of the subject"... [1] —C.Fred (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ow, cool, ta for that link. Is there any problematic content left in the article from that writer? Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a header does not serve the reader and if there is problematic content it should be discussed and amended. If the editor is problematic then there are venues like WP:COI to attend to that.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing at the request of the subject is not the same as a personal or professional connection to the subject; if it were, then every article edited by anyone after the subject complains (for example, through OTRS) would have to be marked that way. Unless there is a more specific statement about personal or professional connection ("I am her aunt"; "she is my co-worker"; something like that), that tag is not appropriate. Removing. --GRuban (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

being in long term close contact and making almost all of your edits "at the request of X" is sufficient, particularly when the edits are all self serving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree as to this point; if the contributor's edits are significantly problematic, that's one thing -- and forgive me, but I don't know the specifics of their activity here well enough to know if that is the case -- but it is entirely possible to edit with a latent COI without actually breaking any policy or adding/weighting/treating content inappropriately. Efforts should be made to educate the editor (who I understand may be operating as single purposes account) of our more non-negotiable guidelines in this area, but I don't see an admission of working at the behest of, or in concert with, the subject as a in-itself reason to call their contributions into question. If they have been working in contradiction to our content policies, some diffs would be useful to illustrate that case. Snow talk 20:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is one of the Worlds leading experts in History and a very visable TV personality on the BBC, History Channel etc- why on Earth would she not have a Wikipedia page? This looks like a case of some type of subterfuge. We need to work on getting this page back to its pristine state. It would appear that the person who caused all of this fuss is now banned?Thewho515 (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzannah Lipscomb. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is one of the Worlds leading experts in History and a very visable TV personality on the BBC, History Channel etc- why on Earth would she not have a Wikipedia page? I have read all of this and (now disabled) user RedPenofDoom? seemed to have started up all of this. In the process has dome a lot of damage to Dr Lipscombs Wiki page. I think it should be changed back. She is a very much a person of note!Thewho515 (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

She isn't "one of the World's leading experts in history" by a long long way, though she's certainly a perfectly respectable academic. She is notable mainly for being a presentable camera-friendly face of history for lightweight TV-history shows. Paul B (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is precisely what makes her eminently notable. --NellieBly (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course she's notable, though I'd balk at "eminently". I have said as much at the deletion page. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Inquiry

Is the question be debated above simply whether or not to mention the existence of the marriage based on that dedication? I'll go ahead and note my perspective upon the matter as contingent upon the answer to that question. If it is a simple matter of noting the marriage as a matter of fact, I'm inclined to agree that the source is likely acceptable in that role, but possibly not sufficient; on the one hand, it may be primary, but primary sources are acceptable for making simple, non-synthetic claims, while on the other, lacking any kind of context (or even so much as a last name of the spouse or duration of the marriage), makes the addition of dubious encyclopedic value. I share the sentiment voiced above by This is Paul: whether she wants the marriage noted or not is of zero concern to our purposes here; if however we have no substantial, and source-able, details about the marriage beyond speculation about even the basics, it's best this element is left out until appropriate sources providing deeper context can be found. I don't know if the lack of details in this area is a result of her concerted efforts, she and her husband being private people, or just a lack of media interest in the detail, but it doesn't really matter to the content/sourcing assessment. Snow talk 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more Thewho515 (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Name

Why are we insisting on putting her married name as "also known as" when one source uses it? I did a quick Google search and... C'mon people. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

agreed. It's one aberrant source; all her books and articles and film credits appear to be under this name. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure I quite follow you when you say that only one source uses it. Just by looking at the first page of your link to the Google search results, I count at least three distinct web pages [2] [3], two of which are reliable sources (the other is from gopetition.org and appears to be on Wikipedia's blacklist), that refer to her with "Lawhead". I don't see why we shouldn't include this name, since it seems that many sources do in fact use this name. Artichoker^[talk] 02:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the same Epsom college source. Where are the "many sources"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

They are different sources from Epsom college which mention her in different contexts. Also as stated above, there is the link from gopetition.org which refers to her with that name as well. Artichoker^[talk] 02:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Petitions (especially online ones) are not reliable sources. And it's still one source (Epsom College) using that name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, gopetition.org is certainly not a reliable source. I simply brought it up to illustrate that perhaps the name is more pervasive than originally thought. I do understand your points though, and I'm fine if the name Lawhead isn't included due to lack of other sources. Artichoker^[talk] 02:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you put a COI tag up. Can you briefly explain what sections need to be looked at? There are a lot of eyes on this article and puffery has been ruthlessly purged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I placed the tag due to several of the major editors of the article having a vested and personal interested in the subject matter. Since the article is currently part of a somewhat contentious blitz of editing (being editing extremely frequently each day now with a lot of information changing), there is the possibility for content that violates the article's neutrality or is of undue weight. Due to this scenario right now, I feel it is appropriate for the article to have a COI tag. What do you think? Artichoker^[talk] 02:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh I agree that there's been COI editing in the past but TheRedPenOfDoom has been at the content and I'm confident in his ability to root out any puffery. I can't see anything that obviously violates NPOV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about the instability of the article, especially when we have COI editors who are willing to edit war on it. However, if you confident that the article in its current state is neutral, I would say the tag can probably be removed then. Artichoker^[talk] 02:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait for other editors to chime in. Things go a lot smoother that way :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 02:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is what I have said all along re: name. It's still one source (Epsom College) No edit war was ever intended or necessary. Cheers Thewho515 (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

NeilN I am not even going to change the name back to the proper "Lipscomb" and not "Lawhead" which is not accurate. User Lw1982 has chosen to make a FIFTH edit to the page. I expect they revert the name as it was left. It seemed like a rational agreement. This user was warned for edit warring. everyone should follow the rules or at least join in the discussion Thewho515 (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The definitive policy is given under [WP:NAME][WP:FULLNAME]: "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname." No policy reason has been presented for preferring Lawhead, and indeed the preponderance of the source weighs in favor of Lipscomb. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NAME is about the name of the article not the also known as names, which I am pretty sure this discussion is about. XFEM Skier (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry: I meant WP:FULLNAME (see "maiden name") MarkBernstein (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That is fine but I am not sure it applies here still. If there are sources that give her as both names then the other name should be included, although not given as her primary name. For example if say Matthew Perry uses that name but there are a number of sources that call him Matt Perry we should include that, but given as an also known as, because they are. Sometimes you don't get to pick what you are called. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree WP:FULLNAME doesn't quite apply but WP:UNDUE does. IMO adding the name places undue weight on what one source calls her. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We have little or no reason to think that anyone will be confused by using the name "Suzannah Lipscomb". It's used in all her books, all her film credits, and all the secondary sources we've found with the exception of one social article about a college dinner. This is not analogous to an entertainer like John Wayne or a writer like Mark Twain; or even a historical figure like Elizabeth Gaskell who is best known by her married name. Indeed, I am extremely puzzled by the desire to drag out this discussion through reversion and pedantic talk page disputation; this isn't even a close call. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the headers

The chat at the delete page seems to be strongly supporting note worthy person and the story has now been improved by others than the coi editor and non primary sources are in plenty now so I took down the respective , related headers - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well done Thewho515 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

and super ta to all improvers of the story, it is now much improved Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

I don't know where else to ask this. This website is now more truthful, but I've found Wiki host this page: [[4]] which includes many of the things that have been removed from this page. Can this celebrity page please be brought up to date - Suzannah Lipscomb has never published under the name Suzannah Lipscomb Lawhead, one of the many inaccuracies in this page.MdeBohun (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the site is anything to do with us. You'd need to contact them. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it might be what's known as a mirror site which copies Wikipedia content. If that is the case it'll eventually cache the current version of this one. Can someone confirm this though? This is Paul (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a straight mirror. You'll have to go and edit on that site. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

NeilN is correct, nothing to do with wikipedia, and it doesn't look like a mirror. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses - here we go again! Btw, is anybody going to respond to my previous Edit Request?MdeBohun (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To Do

Instead of wrangling about the subject's married name, someone might mine her scholarly papers. [[5]] MarkBernstein (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also be useful to include all her awards that were on the page once, e.g. In 2011, she was awarded a public engagement grant (People Award) from the Wellcome Trust to fund ‘All the King’s Fools’, a performance project in which actors with learning disabilities played the Tudor period’s ‘naturalabout fools’ at Hampton Court Palace, which won a 2012 Museums + Heritage Award for Excellence. And most prestigious of all, in 2012, she was awarded the Nancy Roelker Prize by the Sixteenth Century Society for her journal article, ‘Crossing Boundaries: Women’s Gossip, Insults and Violence in Sixteenth-Century France’ in French History (Vol 25, No. 4).

You will also see that she did not start work at NCH in 2012, but in 2011. This is a quote from her website "In October 2011, she took up her post as Convenor for History and Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at New College of the Humanities

I fail to see how reference [1] proves her middle names as there is absolutely no reference to them in this reference, so her middle names should be deleted.

I realise that as a hated COI person it is unlikely that anybody will take any notice of any of this, but if Wikipedia is seeking truth it seems quite ridiculous when everything I have said can be verified elsewhere.MdeBohun (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

References

.MdeBohun Patience: we'll get it fixed. Eyes are now focused. If you like, contact me by email. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence of the notability of these awards such as independent third party sources covering them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

MdeBohun Please read the reference [1] in full it does actually say "Suzannah Rebecca Gabriella Lipscomb; b. Dec. 7, 1978" Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Roelker Prize: [[6]] [[7]]. Plenty of references in Google to other prize winners. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Roelker Prize:[[8]] [[9]] [[10]]MdeBohun (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Blogs and press releases are not considered reliable references. Theroadislong (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

But the web site of the organization granting the prize is definitive: cf. Academy Awards, Booker Prize, Nobel Prize. Is the question here (a) whether the prize was awarded to the subject; (b) whether the prize is notable -- i.e. covered by reliable sources; or (c) how difficult can we make things for other editors :) ? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

More references for All The King's Fools: [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] I have repeated the History Today reference as it is a magazine, not a blog. MdeBohun (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Where should the sentence about Lipscomb writing newspaper and magazine articles go? It used to be on the page. It went something like this "Lipscomb regularly writes articles for newspapers and history magazines, and writes a bi-monthly article for History Today."[[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] MdeBohun (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I might rename the "Books" section to "Publications", and then add this sentence with two or three representative pieces. The French history essay which won the Roelker prize could go here, along with the History Today columns, and perhaps the Telegraph review. It's not necessary to include every paper and article, of course; the highlights will suffice. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

we are not a CV we do not list every publication. every book, OK; highly cited journal articles or articles that have otherwise been influential in the field, OK; pieces that have won notable awards, OK; items that have received third party notice for their notoriety or other reasons, OK. But in the main, no reason for an encyclopedia to cover standard short piece publications. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

MarkBernstein I think there should be some mention of such work, and leave it to you to decide how best it should be put up so as not to offend TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom's highly trained sensibilities.MdeBohun (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested edit

It would also be useful to have some positive quotes about her programmes as well as the very negative ones - I have a few here:

Re: 'I Never Knew That About Britain', a positive review can be found here:

http://nativemonster.com/lifestyle/tv/tv-review-i-never-knew-that-about-britain, and a quote from it is 'I Never Knew That About Britain aims to educate the viewer with fascinating facts about the country they live in - and it does do that.'

Re: 'Henry and Anne'. Two positive reviews can be found here:

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/csywzm/henry-viii--anne-the-lovers-who-changed-history--series-1---episode-1, and a quote from it is 'Historian Suzannah Lipscomb examines the extraordinary story o the tumultuous love affair between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, beginning by exploring the seven-year courtship of the royal couple. Using dramatic reconstructions and first-hand accounts, she delve into their backgrounds and personalities, searching for the trigger - personal and political - that would lead to their falling in love.'

and

http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/459530/Fatal-attraction-New-documentary-reveals-romantic-secrets-of-Henry-VIII-and-Anne-Boleyn, and a quote from it is 'Henry and Anne draws on first-hand accounts to tell the story of their seven year courtship, their marriage and, eventually Anne's execution at the orders of her husband.' MdeBohun (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done edits requested above. --Mdann52talk to me! 19:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Dealt with --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Admin help please Could some kind Admin please remove from the history of this page asap some numbers accidentally left by User:MdeBohun earlier today. She has quite correctly removed them from the page, but I feel we should ensure they vanish from the record totally, and I have no idea how to get this done, except by asking here? Thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Roxy the dog, WP:RFO is what you want. Quicker and more private. --NeilN talk to me 15:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I have asked there. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC) That was nicely quick. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

pic

Can someone crop the image to a headshot to remove that incongruous and distracting ladder?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't tweak it myself, but as the surrounding is quite dark cropping the image might help with that too. This is Paul (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've cropped and tweaked the image but not sure how you upload a new version? I've only ever uploaded my own photos. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Theroadislong, in the File history section of the image click the "Upload a new version" link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't see a link called "Upload a new version" sorry! Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Theroadislong, are you logged into Commons? It's right above the File usage header. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, when an image is cropped like that, it's better to upload it as a new image, showing in the license image that it's a derivative of the old image, rather than replace the old image. It keeps the audit trail better for image rights. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK done it, I hadn't noticed I wasn't logged into commons thank you for the help. 14:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks grand. This is Paul (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

thank you!--- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I will agree. That looks much better.Thewho515 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

Nationality info is constantly being added to this page with no reference. If a reliable source can be found I am happy for it to be added but if this is no source we shouldn't allow it to be continually be put on the page. Can an admin please prevent this? (Lw1982 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

Assuming her place and date of birth are correct, she's entitled to British citizenship by right of birth. Really think this is a bit of a lame thing to be edit warring over, since it's fairly obvious what her nationality is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I did look for something actually after Lw1982 removed reference to it last night, but there are no sources stating "she was born in England/the United Kingdom". I suggested bringing it here for discussion, but guess that after the furore surrounding this topic we should find something. This is Paul (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

[WP:NATIONALITY] says the lede should contain the country where she is a citizen, national! or permanent resident. We certainly have source for residency, probable source for birth, and no one has offered the slightest reason to doubt. She's British.MarkBernstein (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail as a source

Looking through the page history I get the impression OTRS have recommended the Mail not be used as a source here. Could someone just confirm whether or not that is the case? Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This is Paul, OTRS doesn't decide what are reliable sources. Here are discussions on the reliability of the Daily Mail [23], [24], [25] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(OTRS comment) Based on the OTRS ticket and the reason for requesting removal of the information, only that information should be excluded (and preferably not discussed at all) the reliability of the article is per the discussions linked about. That is, unless Mdann52 had a different interpretation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil, interesting discussions and well worth taking on board. Callanecc, I wonder if it would be worth blacklisting that article as I hadn't realised there were issues regarding its content, and others may not in future. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think listing it on the spam blacklist would be helpful or appropriate. I was tempted to add an OTRS template at the top of this page but that would just draw attention to it so might be best left alone for now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@This is Paul: Just confirming I agree with User:Callanecc on this. btw, pings only work if you sign the edit when you ping someone, hence why I was not pinged so did not respond sooner --Mdann52talk to me! 15:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Grand, I'm glad that's all sorted out. This is Paul (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In general, the Daily Mail isn't reliable, but it does occasionally have stories that are occasionally useful. WP:RS is not a dichotomy, and we can trust editors to make appropriate editorial judgements on this without having to spam blacklist it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Barney, that's pretty much what I reckoned. This is Paul (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Her nationality

Looking for some consensus on her nationality. I've just restored this information after it was removed on the grounds it isn't sourced. As she was born in England (which we do have sourced) then her nationality is British, unless she states otherwise. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide the source that states she was born in England? (Lw1982 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

We did have that information in the infobox, and I seem to recall it was sourced. Seems to have disappeared now though, so I wonder if there was a problem with it. Maybe someone can explain what's happened to it. On another slightly different note, her residence (given as Barnes, London) isn't referenced either. This is Paul (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There was a reference to the residence and I have now restored this. http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/suzannah-lipscombs-my-london-8985703.html. The ref to her nationality in the info box was wrong as it was the dailymail article that stated she grew up in Surrey, no mention of her birth place. (Lw1982 (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC))

I thought it came from the Library of Congress source, but I see it was the Mail. This is Paul (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The British Library Online can easily confirm subject born in and resides in England Thewho515 (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link? This is Paul (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Age controversy

Resolved by discussion and OTRS tickets. If this occurs in the future, and appears not to be getting anywhere, please refer to me or another agent on the response team, so we can help confirm identity and resolve this issue in a timely fashion. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 16:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Difficulties to find sources on her age? That means she wants to keep it to herself. She has not even indicated her graduation years from schools. Understandable. Young and cute woman does not want her age to be revealed. (My mom did the same, for many years. :) What if we just ignore that fact? Are we spies? Is there a blue-link thing on WP:NOTASPY? Let go of it. She just survived an AfD. Let us leave her (age) alone. My 2 cents. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Why should I have a User Name? Thank you, exactly.MdeBohun (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC) I don't have a problem removing the information, but others might per WP:NOTCENSORED. That's why I suggested using the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team, above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC) It's a standard biographical detail. We don't allow subjects to pick and choose what they want in an article. If we're going to start that, I suspect a much wider discussion would be necessary. --NeilN talk to me 19:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC) I don't have a problem with it being removed either. The source's use in an encyclopedic one has been questioned. The fact she wants the information gone too is secondary to that, but should be considered in this case. This is Paul (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC) NeilN talk to me 14:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC) You stated that there had been no indication the subject objected, I was just pointing out to you that this is incorrect, otherwise I would not have put in the request to have her middle names removed.. Above ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) says "two middle names could be removed on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds if someone clearly representing the subject of the article complained." So I am complaining. This is supported by ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC) who says "it would be helpful to have a direct complaint from the subject". I am not the subject, but I represent her.MdeBohun (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Just to be clear, the subject would like her middle names and her dob removed if Wiki policy allows. As already stated, there appears to be no clear policy otherwise you would not all be discussing it. I am requesting the removal of these facts under WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds.MdeBohun (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC) As This is Paul mentioned above, I believe that MdeBohun's request should be handled by the Volunteer Response Team due to the nature of the request and not be handled directly here. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC) I agree and have made the same point several times. JoeSperrazza (talk) Requested edit declined. Instead, please have the subject contact the OTRS directly. Artichoker[talk] 22:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Just a note to all, we're not a bureaucracy - the change requested can be made by WP:CONSENSUS - WP:OTRS is not required. I support the change requested (namely, to removed the DoB and middle names), because that data is not critical to the article and, IMO, does not significantly detract from the article by being removed. I won't be WP:BOLD and make the change myself. Does anyone else support or oppose? Why? Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC) I oppose the change, because without good cause, I see no reason to remove the DOB and middle names. These are simply basic facts about the biography and should be included, unless of course there is OTRS action. Artichoker[talk] 22:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC) I too support the change requested via WP:CONSENSUS . I do so for many of the same reasons. This does involve WP:BLPPRIVACY because we are talking about a living person and not Winston Churchill. If we had access to Suzannah Lipscombs home address and telephone number would it be published? No. I also see that another logged out user has made yet another change to the article. Isn't this a violation of WP:SOCK? The article sits for ages. Then article the (unfoundedly) gets put up as Afd. Now, the subject is under microscopic scrutiny. So, it would appear the Afd was bogus in the first place. An obvious WP:SPA made several changes, ignored discretionary sanctions and received a ban. I agree with JoeSperrazza on this. Enough is enough. Thewho515 (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC) It's no big deal. Just remove the middle names and DOB. Things like this should be handled simply and courteously and without some big long argument. Everyking (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC) I agree, but I suggest we keep this section open for comment for a while, in the hope of reaching consensus. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Note this discussion --NeilN talk to me 23:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Middle names I don't really care about. I oppose taking the DOB because as I've said repeatedly, that's standard biographical information. WP:DOB says, "If the subject [not anonymous users purportedly acting on behalf of the subject] complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, [are we saying Lipscomb is borderline notable?] err on the side of caution and simply list the year." (comments, emphasis mine). That's as far as I think we should go if pushed. --NeilN talk to me 23:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC) One has to take into account EU law regarding the right to privacy. The subject is in the EU. That being said, I would think if nothing else there is at least common courtesy which may or may not include compromise. Plus we still have logged editing going on in violation of WP:SOCK I reserve until we hear a bit more. Thewho515 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Perhaps as a librarian I can explain the source of the LC data in question: The information is the LIbrary of Congress authority file, the primary repository of publicly known basic data about individuals who have written books. It is used universally for all library cataloging in the United States and, for US authors, internationally by way of the international VIAF file. It is used a as a source in many WP articles--I use it to help select the authoritative name and to add the birthdate for all articles on authors which do not have the information. The information is added normally at the time the first book by the author is cataloged, and the information is usually taken from the book itself, or information supplied by the author or publisher. In this case it was taken from the title page and publisher's dust jacket of the book mentioned, and from her doctoral thesis. Since the information comes from sources affiliated with the author, it is not absolutely authoritative, for she and her publisher can use what name they choose, and provide or not provide the year and date of birth(though in a PhD thesis it is usual to give the full legal name) In the past, the information also came from a search of reliable outside reference sources, but for over the last 20 years at least, the information is taken just as it is supplied. I do not consider it a "public record" in the usual sense; I consider it just a reliable secondary source for the author's public statement in her published works. In general, I think we would be remiss in not using it. Actors and other public performers and presenters are notorious (and I pick that word deliberately) for trying to conceal their actual birthdate. WP is an encyclopedia, not a press release. The performer is in control of their PR, but we need pay no attention to it. PR is what the subject wants to tell the public; an encyclopedia gives what the public may want to know. For a private figure I would not necessarily include the actual day; for a child I never would; for a person whose notability come from their own public performances (in this case, as well as writing), I consider it essential. I'm guessing here: when she wrote her thesis, and when she published her book, she did not then envision herself as a public figure,and gave the information as matter of course just as you or I might do. She may later have wished to do otherwise, We're a reference work, and should stick to the record. TheEC may want electronic information changed back and forth as it suits the individual--there are situations where this may be appropriate, but public figures are not want of them. I consider an adult who chooses to appear in a feature on television a public figure. If the EU thinks otherwise, it's carrying on the totalitarian pattern of some European countries who thought they needed to control and revise what is known by the populace. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC) I cannot agree more with the wise words of DGG. Lipscomb is a public figure, by her own choice. Her full name and full date of birth are a matter of public published record. The Library of Congress is not a primary source, nor the is the Oxford Gazette. This is an encyclopedia article, not an alternative web page for the subject. Nor is it her "story" as at least one editor bizarrely describes it. Her full name belongs in the article. The date of birth could be truncated to the year only but even that is debatable. Since it is a matter of public record, whether the full DoB is in the Wikipedia article or not, it is still easily available. The arguments about "primary sources", readers potentially being "confused" about what her name is, the threat from lurking identity thieves, the subject's "desire" to present herself in a specific way, are not only bogus but increasingly disruptive attempts by her family and acquaintances to micro-manage this article. Ditto the edit-warring and battle-ground mentality on their behalf exhibited by the article's creator the editor who nominated this article for deletion . Voceditenore (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC) My apologies to the article's creator, who has neither edit-warred nor exhibited battleground behaviour. I had mixed them up with another editor, who has been extensively editing this article in the last month. Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC) I disagree that the Library of Congress counts as a secondary source here. It sounds like the Library of Congress indiscriminately collates this information from all published books. If so, then it doesn't contain "interpretation, analysis, or evaluation" of the information. That's like claiming that a phone book is a secondary source for someone's address because each address in the phone book is copied from somewhere. Furthermore, the spirit of the rule is that secondary sources are required for such information because we should only be publishing information that other people consider to be important. Getting information that is published by one or two sources, even if they are technically secondary, but which is ignored by the vast majority of sources, violates the spirit of the rule. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Possible compromise Use "Suzannah Lipscomb, born 1978" in the opening sentence and infobox, and cite it to the Library of Congress record. Not giving the middle names or date of birth within the article does not lead to a significant loss of context, and there are indications that the subject of the article has objected on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds. This is not the first article where the subject has objected to the full name and date of birth. If they have not been widely disseminated in secondary sources, the policy is to err on the side of caution and respect the subject's wishes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC) I would say this makes more sense than anything I have read thus far. There are plenty of articles set up just this way. It may be different were it a figure of History who is deceased. In this case we are dealing with the Biographies of Living perrsons. Instead of supplying anyone and everyone with a full name, full birth date and residence or other information not needed by the public. We need to give some right the subject under WP:BLPPRIVACY. I feel it would be wise to err on the side of caution as ♦IanMacM♦ has said. I could write paragraph after paragraph of useless information, but these are the clear, concise & relevant facts. Thewho515 (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Support. That seems sensible. Having scanned this page and MdeBohun's talk page I can't quite see (leaving aside editor speculation) specifically what her objection to including her DoB is. I think that matters. If there is some specific and real harm she foresees then that should be respected. (And that's best dealt with via OTRS etc) However, if it is the case that (as has been suggested) professionally she just doesn't want to be seen as "young and cute" (as someone framed it on this page) that I don't think that is a sufficient reason. We should not withhold public domain information (which this is - and per DGG's post above, published via a secondary source) because the subject finds it would be professionally advantageous to do so. Readers have a reasonable and legitimate interest when looking up bios in an encyclopedia to find the subject's age - and if it's public domain I see no reason to withhold it. However, the actual date and middle names are different. That seems a level of detail that seems to me to be outside of the parameters of a reasonable interest by readers and could be dispensed with without harming the completeness of the bio. DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC) DeCausa I am not the subject.MdeBohun (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC) I understood that. By her in "her objection" (above) I was meaning the subject, not you - if that's what you're referring to. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC) If an ORTS were filed, I would have no objection on just courtesy grounds to limit it to the year, only because an RS biography has not apparently been published for this person. And I could go along with just the year as a consensus matter. I do not however see BLP privacy, as applying here, as the fact is widely published to the public and comes from a secondary source, a secondary source that is republished by countless organizations, nor can I agree that DOB is not encyclopedic information - it is not 'too much information' for a biography, it is according to the practice of the field of biography the right amount of information, but again, because the reliable secondary source is not a biography, we can be flexible in this regard, if and where there is an actual documented objection (ORTS) from the subject (anyone just writing on this page is not enough, because we can't know who they are or their relationships -- including whether they mean good or ill for the subject, we don't want a subject to have grounds to say that 'people are messing with the biography saying they are me or represent me' when they are not or do not. ). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC) As for the new "identity theft" assertion, it is at present without basis for at least two reasons 1) the DOB is widely published (beginning according to the sources by the subject) 2) there is no basis to assert "identity theft" is a documented concern of the subject here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC) My thoughts exactly, briefly alluded to in this edit summary. Limit to year if the subject complains. --NeilN talk to me 11:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the DoB was "not encyclopedic information" or "too much information" per se i.e. as a general rule for it to be excluded from bios. Rather I meant that if the subject was objecting to the day and month showing, the reader loses virtually nothing in their removal. I was coming at this from the point of view of how this particular case could be compromised without impacting the "service" we provide. DeCausa (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC) support including year of birth only - in addition to DeCausa's excellent analysis about Wikipedia becoming a weapon in the subject's PR arsenal, in the age of identity theft, the actual day of the birth is of trivial encyclopedic value but of great value to the criminal world and a potential cause for huge inconvenience or worse for the subject. Weak support for using only stage name - The full name is generally of encyclopedic value, but if we are not going to include any information about other equally or more encyclopedic aspects of her life such as her marriage that she has actually publicly announced herself because no third parties have covered it, the same evaluation should apply . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Support per DeCausa, and per RedPenOfDoom's comments about identity theft. Including the year of birth doesn't seem too intrusive, but we may also need to add a hidden note saying something to the effect that editors are requested not to add a full date of birth in order to prevent this all kicking off again at some future point. This is Paul (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose: I'd be happy with "Suzannah Rebecca Gabriella Lipscomb (born 1978)" because the day and month of birth are not of encyclopedic value but could, conceivably, help in identity theft. But the full name is given routinely in articles on people - see David Cameron for example - and there seems no reason to suppress this well-sourced information, which is her legal name as used in registers of company directors etc. PamD 12:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Comment Since David Cameron is Prime Minister of the UK, it is unsurprising that his full name and date of birth appear in numerous online sources: Britannica, Telegraph. This is not a comparable situation, because the Library of Congress source (which is fairly obscure) appears to be the only one that can be found with this information. In these circumstances, WP:BLPPRIVACY allows some leeway for incorporating the subject's wishes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC) But there are several other sources such as this which give her full names. PamD 12:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC) As above, no objection if and where there is a documented request from the subject in this case. The LOC, however, is not obscure. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose per PamD, and my comment above. Voceditenore (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)  Done per this discussion and Ticket:2014052010015938. Please contact me via email if you feel differently and wish to appeal. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Identity theft Query to those editors mentioning identity theft. Are you supporting the removal of birth dates from all less well-known BLPs? Because we have a lot of them... --NeilN talk to me 12:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Yes, I think it would be good site wide best practice to only include year. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC) I would support it where an objection is raised, such as with this article, but not globally. Objections to middle names and dates of birth have previously been raised to various degrees in minor celebrity bios such as this and this, and we should look at them on a case by case basis. In the first instance, someone claiming to be the subject contacted me with concerns about information, while on the second it was mentioned through the page summary. This is Paul (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC) I don't want to comment on other BLPs, but on this page we shall mention the year, and we are done. OccultZone (Talk) 12:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Yes, I think this discussion should probably take place at the relevant venue, wherever that may be. This is Paul (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC) User:Voceditenore I was very surprised to read your rather rude reference to me and another editor on the Suzannah Lipscomb page "increasingly disruptive attempts by her family and acquaintances to micro-manage this article". You talk about a Jimmy Wales, somebody I have never even heard of. Sorry, I think you are attacking the wrong person. I have never mentioned identity theft, just the fact that one uses ones date of birth increasingly for security. Is that too difficult for you to understand? I have to say that professionally I have rarely come across such a rude, self-important bunch of nobodies. I have no idea who the other editor you are insulting is, but seeing as you have made it perfectly clear that even asking for something on the talk page by a COI results in insults, I won't bother mentioning anything again. What is more I will treat all the negative things I read on other people's Wiki sites with the contempt they deserve, because you lot don't have a clue what you are doing and for some reason or other only like to write negative things about people.--MdeBohun (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Must all her Christian names be mentioned? I see that they are now in the prose as it's been suggested that if they are in the 'silly' box they should be in prose too, but she has never been known by these names.MdeBohun (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

MdeBohun: It's customary for a biographical article to give the subject's entire name, even if it is seldom used in that form. For example, "Woody Allen (born Allan Stewart Konigsberg)", "Lord Peter Death[1] Bredon Wimsey", and "Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill." MarkBernstein (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

MarkBernstein Thank you for explaining that, understood.MdeBohun (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

stop messin about with her name

this is a primary source

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2010030157.html

wikia is now insisting on publishing personal details about this person that have never been reported elsewhere

Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has nothing to do with anything at Wikia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This has been mentioned on Jimbo's talk page, so in the finest traditions of meatpuppetry, here is my two pennies' worth. Suzanna Lipscomb appears to be her WP:COMMONNAME. The document here is from the Library of Congress and is presumably a reliable source. No original research is needed to extract the two middle names (unless two or more people called Suzanna Lipscomb wrote a thesis entitled Maids, wives, and mistresses at Oxford). The issue here is WP:BLPPRIVACY. I'm not convinced that giving the two middle names is a substantial security risk or invasion of privacy, but someone seems to be objecting strongly. The two middle names could be removed on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds if someone clearly representing the subject of the article complained.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Another approach here, although I think BLPPRIVACY is probably relevant as well, is that the way we present it now could inadvertently mislead press sources to assume that it is her preferred name, when clearly from her personal website, twitter account, t.v. listings and so on, that isn't true. If we do find it valuable to mention (which strikes me as questionable in any case) then I think we could do so in a footnote or in the form "Suzannah Lipscomb (born Suzannah Rebecca Gabriella Lipscomb)" so that the reader immediately understands which is the WP:COMMONNAME.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

But the same argument would apply for any other individual where the article title is "John Smith" and the lead starts "John Marmaduke Algernon Smith". The imfobox is headed by her short name, as is usual. Those "press sources" could be misled by half the BLP articles in the encyclopedia (no, not an accurate statistic: for "half" read "a lot"). It is normal for library catalogues to use a person's name in the fullest available form, and it is also normal for WP articles to include the fullest available form in the lead. The article title is the Common Name. PamD 13:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up to say User:Mosfetfaser has now removed them as "unreported detail". I can think of a couple of occasions where this sort of thing has been an issue in the past, but don't see a problem as long as it's sourceable, which the information here is. This is Paul (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." On the basis of the sourcing, this makes both the middle names and date of birth of borderline suitability for inclusion. Someone is objecting here, but it would be helpful to have a direct complaint from the subject.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And I've reverted - there's been absolutely no indication Lipscomb objects. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't sure whether to do that, so thanks. I've implemented Jimbo's suggestion in case of possible confusion, but feel free to revert if you don't agree. This is Paul (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks Paul. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I did revert. The problem with putting the full name in the "born" section is that it suggests she has legally changed her name to remove the middle names. As PamD noted, convention elsewhere throughout Wikipedia is to use the fullest verifiable name in the introduction. —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, would it work better as: "Suzannah Rebecca Gabriella Lipscomb (born 7 December 1978), known professionally as Suzannah Lipscomb is a ..."? Or would that present the same issues? This is Paul (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Biographies should include a full name and date of birth in the lead, if known, as well as nationality. The biography should also include place of birth, if know. These are basic facts of any biography. Somehow there is a trend of BLP extremism that argues that everything is optional and at the discretion of the subject. No. Wikipedia's BLP Policy is meant to protect subjects from defamation by assuring that all potentially negative aspects of a biography are fully and properly documented. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Have just restored this again since it was removed a short while ago without apparent consensus to do that, and with the argument that LOC is a primary source. If there is a good and valid reason for removing this sourced information then let's hear it. This is Paul (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Date of Birth per WP:BLPPRIMARY

After having just added some details to an edit-warring warning on an editor's talk page (see User_talk:Mosfetfaser#May_2014_3, I noticed the edits in question add a date of birth based on a Primary source. However, WP:BLPPRIMARY says not to do that:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Apologies to User:Mosfetfaser. I believe you are correct to have removed that information (but you are not correct to edit war to do so). JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. I took the dob out. Should we do the same with the names? This is Paul (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, I don't think so. Let's see what other's think. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not good enough for me. I believe the LOC data is a summary of primary sources and should be treated as a secondary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Lets go to dispute resolution with -User:NeilN about this - he thinks this is a secondary source - http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2010030157.html Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to calm down with your posts and wait for others to respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source - you need to get a grip and accept wikipedia policy - the bestest ever thing is that you are not an administrator - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mosfetfaser there is no need for that kind of comment ("get a grip") - please read WP:NPA. Regarding User:NeilN's comment, it is reasonable to try to work things out here before going to WP:DRN. For the benefit of all, the "LOC" reference is here: [26]. Further comment follows the next comment. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• It appears it is widely reported by the Library of Congress, a fact specifically taken by the Library from her published thesis. So the republishing by the Library looks to be secondary because they took note of it from all other information in her thesis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The question is - does the LOC's usage in this regard makes its document a de jure Secondary source? Clearly her thesis is a primary source. The reason I ask is that the idea behind secondary sourcing is that an editing process is involved that in some fashion certifies the information. Is this the case here? JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Secondary is good because it shows it is of note. There appears to be no basis to claim the Library is unreliable (or the thesis is unreliable) in this regard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC) And it is edited information published by the Library, if that is what you are asking. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I will come up with a source if need be but LOC files also encompass alternate and misspellings of names for a subject so there is some editorial oversight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Helpful post by DGG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard. First, the LOC information is probably, in effect, a secondary source. Second, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia for innocuous and uncontroversial data -- and a historians birth date seems precisely the sort of thing where this policy makes sense. Finally, do we have any reason to doubt the birth date? To think it might be controversial or damaging? Is this dispute merely for the sake of disputation? If not, what is the issue? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping things simple. However, User:Mosfetfaser has vociferously objected to including the DoB, stating that the source is Primary. If Primary, then WP:BLPPRIMARY indicates we should not use the DoB. If Secondary, then including it is useful. I'm OK with considering the LOC a Secondary source, but one editor does not a consensus make. Waiting for other inputs (as Neil has said, things work best that way).... JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Also see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#personal_privacy_verses_free_information. I'd like User:Mosfetfaser to explain why this is such a hot issue. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I would consider it primary, falling under WP:BLPPRIMARY. Wikipedia should reflect existing secondary-source coverage, rather than shaping it. If reporters research her birthdate and it is widely published, that is one thing: but Wikipedia should follow not lead such efforts. That's a longstanding core principle. Andreas JN466 18:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring never a good idea

This edit [27] was really uncool. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact - it appears that someone logged out to revert to their favorite version:

• I recommend against anyone else reverting around this edit.
• Whatever is decided here will result in a final edit (barring WP:DRN).

JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been some indication that the subject objects to all her names being used, that was what my comment at the beginning of the thread was for. It is no secret that I am related to the subject and she has expressed the view to me that he feels violated having so many people pick over her life like this. If it is Wiki policy to use full names and dob, then so be it, but clearly it is not policy otherwise there would not be all this discussion. That being the case, she would prefer that these details were removed. Thank you.MdeBohun (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If the user objects to certain information being in the article, she should contact the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. See Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects for details on how to do so. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that it's not just the Library of Congress authority record which uses her full names: if you Google the long form of her name there are several company directorship databases such as this one which show her name and, in this case, date of birth minus day of month. PamD 21:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That makes it definitive, as far as I am concerned, that any elision of names or dates should be handled by WP:OTRS, or WP:CONSENSUS, but not WP:BOLD. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Her full name is also recorded in the Oxford University Gazette at [28]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As I detailed below, I have reverted the edits, due to an OTRS ticket. I have already had one user edit war with me over an OTRS actino, so I just need to make something clear; WP:OTRS states "the volunteer team strongly recommends that you contact the editor responsible prior to reverting". If people start edit-warring over OTRS actions on this page further, WP:ANI will be the next stop. I apologize for warning everyone rather than individual editors; I do not want a repeat of what happened last time. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

titles

May I suggest that as her title when at the University of East Anglia was shown as 'Lecturer in history', that her current title of 'Convenor for History and Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History' at the New College of the Humanities also be stated, rather than just the bland 'a member of the faculty'.

Thanks very much.MdeBohun (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it really promotional and self-serving to use a factual job title (especially when two previous job titles have been used), when that is referenced to the subject's employer's website?MdeBohun (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

you yourself have identified that it is in fact a promotional spin by declaring other option "bland" in comparison. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

MdeBohun, I don't understand what the problem is. The fact that she is "Convenor and Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at the New College of the Humanities" was added per your request to the article on June 14th [29] and has not been removed. What was removed as promotional and self-serving was "She is currently writing a book on the lives of women in sixteenth-century France". Incidentally, relative time constructs like "currently" are contrary to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. This article is not her personal web page. If the future book receives independent coverage, then it should be mentioned, not before. Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore The job title was changed by TheRedPenOfDoom and reinstated by a Wiki administrator. TheRedPenOfDoom also added the book she is said to be writing, probably because I had previously told him that she was no longer writing on this subject! Maybe he wants to make a point that the website from which the information is taken is not up to date, so I've asked the subject to ask NCH to bring her bio up to date, so thanks to him/her for the heads-up. MdeBohun (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, MdeBohun, the information about the book was added by User:Anniej1978 today with this edit with multiple attempts to restore it by 82.132.235.144. TheRedPenOfDoom has never removed her job title since its addition on 14th June. It was removed today (twice) by 82.132.235.144, on the inappropriate assumption that if the book could not be mentioned then neither could her title since they were both sourced to her official bio at New College of the Humanities. The IP's edits were reverted by Mdann52. who incidentally is not an administrator. Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

talk It doesn't really matter who put it in and took it out, the point was that it had been removed after it had been added as per my request and Mdann52 reinstated it, and that was the point that I was replying to you about. I had understood that Mdann52 was an administrator, but whatever!MdeBohun (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes it does matter since you wrongly accused TheRedPenOfDoom of repeatedly removing her title and of adding the information about the book and went on to say "probably because I had previously told him that she was no longer writing on this subject!". It's always a good idea to read the article's history carefully before jumping to conclusions about an editor's motive. Voceditenore (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, on top of which, the IP removing the job title aoppears (from the edit summaries) to be doing so as a WP:POINTy response to the removal of the promotional material on the book! DeCausa (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)