Talk:Jane Hamsher

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments section

I have placed a request for comment so that other editors may weigh in on whether the section belongs. I have reverted it because it takes a point of view about the FDL comments section vis-a-vis comments sections at other blogs, but cites no outside sources for its assertions. I don't find it remarkable or encyclopedic that a blog moderates comments, and assertions about the rightness or wrongness need to be cited to a reliable source, such as one of the newspaper profiles about Hamsher. --Dhartung | Talk 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Copied from dialog at Dhartung's Talk page

Dhartung,

Your removal of the recently contributed text titled "Firedoglake Comments Section" under the entry on Jane Hamsher is out of line. Your comments justifying that reversal violate all three of Wikipedia's content-governing policies [No Original Research, Neutral Point-of-View, Verifiable]. These policies are 'non-negotiable' and your violation of them as an editor is a serious offense to contributors at Wikipedia. While I commend the accuracy of your comments on the previous submission regarding Original Research, you have no right to suddenly switch arguments to suit your opinion that the corrected post is unworthy of a sectional entry in Wikipedia.

Your comments accompanying the deletion were: Dhartung (Talk | contribs) (rv: seriously, 90% of blogs moderate comments, so what? this reads like an axe-grind)

"Seriously, 90% of blogs moderate comments" Where do you get your facts? Is this your opinion or do you have a reference? Your reversal on this comment alone is a violation of the 'No original Research' and 'Non-verifiable' Policies. In addition your opinion is directly contradicted by Wikipedia itself...

Check out the Blogs entry on Wikipedia. It clearly states that comments are used in blogs and that they "are a way to provide discussion on blog entries. Readers can leave a comment on a post, which can correct errors or contain their opinion on the post or the post's subject." Where does it state that blog readers can 'attempt' to leave a comment but that 90% of blogs moderate them?

Further, follow the link to another entry on Wikipedia entitled Feedback comment system. This entry states that Feedback comment systems "are usually placed on blogs". It also states that "Collecting comments from visitors is very important, especially if your website is for commercial purposes. It can help you understand what your visitors are looking for and what your visitors do not want." If a commercial site implies it has a commonly accepted 'Feedback comment system', but does not, then that is an interesting piece of factual information about the site. It could be that it uses the system to create fictional dialogs, market a story, or any number of purposes. The post you deleted does not accuse this site of any of these things. It simply states that the site does not allow comments under the generally accepted definition of a "Feedback comment system" that is used on many "Blogs". It is up to the reader to draw any conclusions or conduct further research, and it does not by inference imply any particular scenario.

"so what?" Do I really need to address the inappropriateness of your comment in regards to an entry in a FREAKIN Encyclopedia??? It is especially troubling to hear this point of view emanating from an Editor of encyclopedia that is an online collaborative effort. Besides the fact that you justify your cavalier 'so what' attitude with only NON-Verified speculation, the larger point is that you seem to have some attachment to this particular page. Which brings me to my final point

"this reads like an axe-grind" How so Dhartung? You seem to be trying to read between the lines here. The entry contains no Point-of-View, it is completely neutral. It is fact based and would be relevant to someone looking for more information on the Firedoglake blog, especially someone having trouble submitting comments. In the future it can be easily abridged with the addition of a documented policy on commenting by the site. Do your frequent additions and contributions to this page cloud your judgment? Based on your complete deletion of the text (with no effort to edit), your varying and contradictory arguments to suppress the contributed content, and your substitution of speculation for fact, I believe it might be you who has the axe to grind. I suggest you re-read the Wikipedia policy defining a Neutral Point-of-View. It applies to deletions and edits as well as contributions. You should know better.

I will resubmit as is. (oops, looks like someone else already has) I am open to your improvements as long as the facts remain articulated, and the content remains in keeping with Wikipedia's three fundamental policies - Original Research, Neutral Point-of-View, Verifiable.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.121.17 (talk • contribs)

I am confident that I have removed the section per Wikipedia policy. I have argued that the content is a) unencyclopedic (not notable), b) unverifiable (no citations to third parties), and solely constitutes your personal observations. If they were neutral and to the point, they could stay. I do not believe the section is neutral. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could moosh two sentences and take out the line:

Regular 'front page' posts at Firedoglake are often in convergence with the Progressive and Libertarian blogging establishment (see blogroles at Atrios, Wolcott, Billmon and other commonly accepted Libertarian or Progressive blogs).

So it reads as follows:

The comments section at Firedoglake implies that comments are accepted from the internet community at large. There is a comment submission form attached to all 'front page' posts. However, there is no documented or published policy that explains the criteria for acceptable comments at the site and no registration process for creating accounts capable of submitting comments. (see Firedoglake) Comments submitted with a valid e-mail address do not register in the comments section so there is no way to verify the authenticity of comments or commenters on Firedoglake. (Select the Firedoglake comments link on any homepage post and enter your comment with a valid e-mail address). Jane Hamsher has not publicly addressed the fact that the comments section at Firedoglake is censored and edited.

That should help cut to the chase and make the entry 'too the point'. I really don't know how to address your assertion that it is not neutral. Exactly what point of view is the section advocating? It does not say this is wrong or right, it has proper tone, its fact based, its a major feaure of the site whether it is spam protection, censorship, a bug, or marketing ploy, and is relevant information to a user of the site of any political persuasion. Go to the site...its completely verifiable.

I don't want to get into this much more with you but you really haven't argued much of anything...just stated your beliefs and opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.121.179 (talk • contribs)

Look, it's the responsibility of the person adding information to have a solid justification. That said, I'm fair, so:
  • The political commentary just seems unnotable. A progressive/liberal website has progressive/liberal comments. Um, OK.
  • The mere fact of having a comments section merits little more than an acknowledgement, as a small number of prominent blogs do not have them.
  • That there is no published policy is also fairly normal for blogs, which are mostly run pretty much ad-hoc. If they have a policy that is unusual, that might be notable.
  • Registration information not being displayed is slightly unusual, but is it notable?
  • Finally, your concern that Hamsher has not "addressed" what you then call censorship seems suspect, as if you're ticked off about a deleted comment (whether or not you are).
In my view most of the above are simply the result of using WordPress vs. more robust community software such as Scoop or phpBB.
The reason that not every verifiable fact is worth including is that Wikipedia should only be about facts that are notable. If someone else writes about something, that at least shows that it's been noted. Otherwise we would have everybody and his little brother doing ginormous write-ups of their little brother's best friend's website. Look at our articles on Atrios and even DailyKos and you won't see much about posting policies. I think it's far more interesting and notable that Hamsher has opened up front page posting pretty broadly.
Ultimately, Wikipedia is just not a "guide" to using another website.
As I said, I'm fair, so here's my take on the topic, folded into a higher paragraph:
... as a result of the blog. FDL is now published using WordPress and allows limited commenting capabilities without the features found on more robust community sites such as Daily Kos. Volunteer moderators or an automatic spam filter may block comments. Almost all threads run to hundreds of comments.
This describes the community for the general reader without giving the comments undue weight as part of the topic.--Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC response

The section in question does take on the tone of POV OR. If the material cited a source for its criticism it would be acceptable. As things are, I doubt this rises to the level of encyclopedic material. I agree it would be appropriate to delete the section. Durova 15:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Dhartung, For the most part I agree with what you just said and would agree with your suggested changes. Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts. The topic of comments is covered in other entries on Wikipedia describing blogs (so it is notable to others), however it is condensed to a sentence or two. A published policy or faqs is quite common on blogs that have risen to the level of a firedoglake. I think you would agree that most blogs do not deserve mention in Wikipedia and one's that do, have reached a threshold where unique details of their sites are notable.

Like I said, I am ok with your folding this into the preceding paragraph:

... as a result of the blog. FDL is now published using WordPress and allows limited commenting capabilities without the features found on more robust community sites such as Daily Kos. Volunteer moderators or an automatic spam filter may block comments. Almost all threads run to hundreds of comments.

Durova, I think any possible tone issues are corrected via Dhartung's suggestion. It is similar to other Wikipedia entries on blogs once condensed.

I have read the section on what Wikipedia is/is not. For the record, 'Notable' is a terrible term to use in editing an encyclopedia, especially this one, and I see it is not official policy. It's use as a guideline is in dispute. Think about it. It provides tremendous leeway to editors to justify their opinions on content and is very open to abuse. Encyclopedia's are 'notable' for their depth, their topic, their format. By its very nature, an encyclopedia is a collection of content that is not notable to most people, hence their need. Suggesting content submitted to a worldwide collaborative encyclodia is not notable, goes against the very concept. Any of the points made by Dhartung\Durova could have been better articulated by leaving out the term 'notable', 'unencyclopedic', 'level of encyclopedic', etc. and instead focusing on a more detailed arguement in support of official wikipedia policy. I appreciate your collaboration. This is just a request to avoid the term in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.121.179 (talk • contribs) .

This is rather odd: why do you critizize the use of "notable" when I have not used that word? In my opinion, this section is deletable as OR unless a reliable source can be found to verify its claims. I have made no comment about the general encyclopedic value of the article as a whole. Durova 00:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, thanks for being agreeable. You will find that "notable" and "encyclopedic" are used frequently on Wikipedia despite being tricky to define. You will also find extensive guidelines attempting to create working definitions that editors can use. There is broad agreement that the project needs some sort of scope to keep it from being just a webhost for random opinion, and these are terms that are in line with most participants' vision of the project content as being both serious and important. How the determination is made is either by policy, by guideline, or by editorial consensus, in descending order of priority. Obviously there is always judgement involved but usually things can be resolved using these broad metrics. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia, and I hope you stick around and register. --Dhartung | Talk 09:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dhartung.

-Anon  :)

Trivia Revisited!

Although trivia sections are discouraged, this article could use one, as it's speckled from beginning to end with worthless 'Wikipedia' information.

FDL and photoshop incident

That section about the photoshop incident is way overblown and looks like more axe-grinding to me. I suggest shortening it considerably or removing it. 67.117.130.181 13:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So you solved that by removing the mention entirely? So think about this. Snap those brain cells together. People will wander into this discussion section (there's always something grotty about a Wikipedia article) and they'll see what you wrote. Then they'll wonder what it's all about. Then they'll return to the article and find nothing. So then they'll search the InterTubes to figure out WTF you censored again. All because you can't keep the scissors away and can't keep shut up about it. Takeaway? There's nothing wrong with mentioning the incident - but there is something wrong with removing mention of it entirely and not noting you've done so on this page. Cheers.

Dead link and POV problems

First things first: This link doesn't go anywhere: [1]

I have removed the link and added a {{fact}} flag.

And the article seems very POV to me, especially the lawsuits described in the film career section -- none of the links provided mention Hamsher, so it's impossible to deduce that she was linked to the lawsuits except for working on the films in questions. Links which are provided in a biography, especially about legal claims, should at least go to something which name the person involved, in my opinion. I would like to see these removed, or replaced with better citations.

Additionally, this link: [2] is a copy of an LA Times article on Don Murphy's web site, not a valid source for wikipedia. Original sources need to be checked and verified. Plus, the source does not say what the article claims it does. What's more, the linked copy does not say what this article claims it says.

Furthermore, the reference [3] does contain the phrase "colorful expressions of opinion" as claimed in the article, but does not say they are merely such; instead, the full quote is "colorful expressions of opinion are thoroughly disclosed with no fact of any significance falsely stated." The premature truncation of this quote introduces further POV problems into the entry.

In short, this is an entry with serious POV issues related to Hamsher's film career. --Kynn 06:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I can agree with the dead link issue (have a mackeral) I must dispute your POV issue completely. Go back several months and you will see the debate that was held. The fact is the woman gets involved in a lot of lawsuits. The fact also is that it is not for us to decide why, simply as a cyclopedia to state the facts. An LA Times article is a VERY good source for this place. Indeed the best source. Who cares whose site they are on. Would you rather host it yourself? Therefore, the article is very valid and has been up here now in this form for some time and is not for you to question. Thanks for playing though. Spawnopedia 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...you're kidding here, right? Let's look at what all you've said. ...the woman gets involved in a lot of lawsuits... Is she notable for her lawsuits? Is this encyclopedic? In any case, most of the articles linked to for the lawsuits do not mention her. ...Who cares whose site they are on... It definitely does matter whose site it is on. A copy of an article on someone else's site is not a valid source for wikipedia. ...is not for you to question... You're totally wrong there. This is wikipedia. Saying "you can't question this" is not appropriate. Everything can be questioned. --Kynn 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


if everything can be questioned then Wikipedia has no value. Are you therefore slamming the site? This can lead to banning.Spawnopedia 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... What? Questioning a specific source and specific entries on Wikipedia are not grounds for banning. Again, I ask you to step down from this aggressively confrontational attitude, assume good faith, and work together to resolve our differences regarding this entry. --Kynn 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Edit by AZJustice

(Note: AZJustice is most likely another ban-evading sockpuppet of User:Spawnopedia, but good faith assumptions require me to play along until he tips his hand again.)

I have added appropriate full name, explanation of his role in Killers, and a wiki link to Oliver Stone's name. Also, as explained before, the link to a web page hosted on the web site of Don Murphy is not a valid source for wikipedia. Please find a better source for this reference.

I have deleted the sentence that reads "Hamsher's Hollywood career ended soon after." as this is not only POV, but also incorrect -- the book (and supposed article) were in 1997. Hamsher's IMDB entry clearly shows that she produced From Hell in 2001. --Kynn 08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I follow you on this one. Are you claiming that Murphy somehow edited the Times article? AZJustice 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have no way to confirm what he did or did not do with the LA Times article. Linking to copies of articles on someone else's web site is bad practice. --Kynn 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits retreading old ground

I've reverted the article to remove edits by User:AZJustice. There are several problems with the text which was included:

Another film she produced, Apt Pupil also was the target of a strange lawsuit involving young boys and allegations of sexual misconduct. [New Times Los Angeles Thursday, July 2, 1998,] [4]

Those problems include:

  • The source cited does not state Hamsher's involvement. In fact, this has very little to do with Hamsher, apparently, and including it in her entry here is an obvious attempt at guilt-by-association. See previous discussion on this page.
  • The link given for the article cited is not a reliable source, but rather a copy of an article on Don Murphy's web site -- Murphy being Hamsher's ex-partner. Copies of articles are not reliable. See previous discussion on this page.
  • The language used here does not describe the "strange lawsuit" nor Hamsher's involvement in it -- or actually, lack of involvement. A "strange lawsuit"? That's POV right there. Loaded words are used as well. If this were valid for inclusion on Hamsher's entry (and it most definitely is not), then it would need to be rewritten. However, the material is not appropriate.

Once more, this is (to me) a very clear example of a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet by Don Murphy rather than a legitimate attempt to improve the entry. --Kynn 07:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the full article is reprinted on that page by cited on many pages on the web. I cited the article in my edit which you just removed as a gut wrench without reading. I propose we remove the word strange and just cite the article AZJustice 07:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prove the relevancy of this information to the subject of the article, Jane Hamsher. The cited article -- from Don Murphy's site -- does not mention Jane Hamsher. Why exactly would this be in an encyclopedic article about her? (Unless, of course, it's meant to support the Spawnopedia theory (earlier on this talk page) that Hamsher has been involved in "a lot of lawsuits" -- which is POV poppycock).
If you can write a version of your citation that identifies how Hamsher was involved in the Apt Pupil lawsuit and explains why it is relevant to an encyclopedic entry on Hamsher -- as well as providing a legitimate source link -- then by all means, go ahead. I don't think you can do it, though, because although it might be easier for you to provide a URL to the New Times article that isn't on Murphy's site, there exists no relevance to your addition beyond a smear on the subject of the article. --Kynn 07:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's Friend Kynn

Sir you removed a very well sourced edit and said to refer to talk page. Are you gonna talk? AZJustice 06:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained above why it is not "well-sourced".
Also, please immediately stop with the "subject's friend" smear against me. You -- or your meat/sockpuppets -- have repeatedly impugned my integrity and credibility with this false statement, which you have manufactured yourself, claiming that I'm a "friend" of Jane Hamsher. I am not, and persisting in labeling me as such will be treated as harassment. Stop. --Kynn 07:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me NextofKynn? You can tell me I am Don Murphy or his friend (which I am not) but I cannot tell you that I have read that you are closely related to Hamsher? Sorry, Honey says no. Harassment involves something you are forced to do BTW. You do NOT have to read anything I write. AZJustice 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I am "closely related to Hamsher." Cute. You know, you'd be more believable as a non-sockpuppet if you would just stop saying the same things that every other sockpuppet has said so far. --Kynn 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I read. Why would you guard her entry for WEEKS if you were not a friend or relative? Answer- you would not. AZJustice 07:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I'm neither a friend nor a relative of Hamsher, nor have I ever met her or exchanged email with her.
Answer actually is: When I edit an entry, I put it on my watchlist. And I revert vandalism that happens to pages I've edited. Simple enough, isn't it? --Kynn 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


you revert things you do not like- that does not ipso facto make it vandalismAZJustice 07:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that Hamsher is such a contentious topic.....

I have added a section on her involvement in l'affaire Joe Klein. I hope that it meets the standards of everyone.
--Nbahn (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firedoglake.com

Many "facts" are held up and footnoted to her personal blog, firedoglake.com. I believe Wiki Rules FORBID using blogs as references. Unless someone disputes I will be removing all matters substantiated only by her personal blog GumbyOrmond (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In biographies of living persons, the personal blogs of the subject are permitted to be used as source citations of information about the subject and they are included in the EL section as well. For more information, please visit the discussion of self-published blogs in WP:V#Sources and in WP:BLP#Sources. Wikipedia does not "FORBID" using blogs as references; it has specific guidelines pertaining to source citations that are blogs; many blogs are not self-published; they are published as sections of newspapers and other media online resources; it is the self-published comments of others (espec. by anonymous or unverifiable authors) in both self-published blogs and in third-party publications whose reliability as sources are questioned in Wikipedia; those are not permissible especially in biographies or living persons. If the blog posts are composed by a clearly-identifiable authority on a subject, moreover, sometimes they are permitted; it depends on the subject and the nature of the authority of the writer. Again, please consult the related links in WP:BLP and WP:V relating to permissible uses and restrictions on usage of such sources. --NYScholar (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed citation to a self-published blog not by the subject of the article (as per above). --NYScholar (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed material without verifiable and reliable source citations as per WP:BLP (see links in this talk page header) and added templates marking the missing citations throughout. See espec. WP:NOR--statements still need verifiable and reliable source citations as per both WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources. --NYScholar (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:EL (a editing "guideline" in Wikipedia) for information pertaining to permissible external links and qualifications pertaining to WP:BLP#Sources (editing "policy" in Wikipedia) for related restrictions and guidance in editing biographies of living persons such as this subject. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did she graduate from the program with an MFA?

The background information about her formal education reads like she was admitted into, and attended, a program which leads to a MFA. If she earned it, it should be stated in a stronger fashion i.e. She earned her Masters of Fine Arts from the ... Program at USC. If she did not, I believe the misleading information about the "program leading to a MFA" should be deleted. The reference, [4], is a web brochure for the school's graduate program, not a reference to her academic achievement.

This section of the Wiki article appears to be standard fare from her bio pages throughout the net.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jane Hamsher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Jane_Hamsher"