Talk:Liz Murray/Archive 1

Archive 1

AfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Murray. BD2412 T 04:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment regarding graduation

"The movie credits said that "she left Harvard in 2003." Since she was a member of the class of 2004, this means that she did not graduate from Harvard."

Is it a known fact that she was a member of the class of 2004? It is possible to graduate in 3 years? Although the ambiguity in the movie credits clearly sends some signal.

Danielang 06:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Dang

Response

(The following comment was originally placed within the Liz Murray article. It was moved here by User:Joie de Vivre.)

The movie credits said that "she left Harvard in 2003." Since she was a member of the class of 2004, this means that she did not graduate from Harvard.

Hi. Liz actually returned to Harvard, I know because I am her. :-) Funny, didn't know I had a Wikipedia page. I am studying psychology and after years of going to Harvard part-time, plus two breaks I took in between, I will be graduating with the class of 2008. My email address, for any verification needed by Wikipedia (but please not to be published) is (email address removed by Joie de Vivre per request that it not be published)

Thank You!

Liz Murray

Comment regarding Murray's degree/enrollment status

I think it is important that people know that Liz Murray is not at this moment a Harvard graduate, because I think it changes the moral of her movie. I think we can find some compromise posting on this issue. ~~ Noah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.182.41 (talk • contribs) 15:33, May 24, 2007.

Hi, Noah. While I appreciate your desire to see a factual account of Murray's life listed here, we cannot go beyond the bounds of what is allowed by Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons is very clear in stating that sources are vital for all information but specifically for negative information about living persons.

Let's look at the recent edits: 1 (the intermediate revisions are the same user), and 2 (#2 is by the person who signed as Noah, and #1 is very similar in content to #2 and the IP is very similar.) I am assuming they are both by Noah.

My opinion is that these edits counts as original research: The policy states that "An edit counts as original research if:

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

• "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

If we look back on the edits, it's pretty clear that they are intended portray the image that Liz Murray dropped out. We don't have any information whatsoever on Liz Murray's enrollment status and it is unjust to state something which essentially says "She should have graduated by now, and she's not in the Harvard directory so.... draw your own conclusions". No. Per WP:OR, that is not allowed.

This is especially true if it is your goal to clarify, as you said, that "she is not a Harvard graduate". I didn't hear you mention that you had tried to find out anything about her enrollment status. Don't you think that sounds a little prejudiced, to state "She didn't graduate." and leave it at that? Wouldn't it be better to actually verify whether she is enrolled at Harvard, enrolled elsewhere, or not enrolled? The way you're going about it makes it look as though you just want to make her look bad.

You might be interested to know that I am attempting to contact Murray to see if she wants to reveal whether she is still enrolled at Harvard. However, I may not hear back from her at all. She is under no obligation to reveal personal details for this article. If she does not respond then we will have to leave it blank. Please familiarize yourself with the OR policy in the meantime as I am sure it will be helpful. Joie de Vivre 21:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I contacted Liz Murray and according to her email, she did leave, but returned in Jan. 2006. She doesn't live on campus dorms, but with a roommate off-campus near central square. As for the lack of a Facebook account, Murray stated that she preferred to remain anonymous to prevent unwanted publicity. The email was from a harvard.edu email account, so I'm inclined to trust it. I'm updating the page given the new info, but I'm attaching a "citation needed" tag to it, since I have no website source. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an official policy which forbids the inclusion of such material. A quote from that page by Jimbo Wales:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

In the absence of verifiable sources, this information has been removed. Joie de Vivre 13:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the info is not slanderous or derogatory. If I stated that Murray was not attending Harvard...then there might be a problem. Furthermore, I received an email from the person herself, so it's not like I posted "pseudo information" on the page. I added the "need source" tag since my words cannot serve as the source. If you want, I can post the email for proof, but I need to ask for permission first. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy is not limited to derogatory information. It's required of all content on Wikipedia. There is a particular emphasis of this policy's importance when it comes to biographical articles. In the absence of an independently verifiable source, we must not include this original research. Joie de Vivre 17:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you for the clarifications on the discussion page. I think the page looks great the way it is right now, with the information that Liz has taken an unusal amount of time to finish her degree (or is still finishing). For an original cite, I was thinking of citing the actual harvard directory, https://www.pin1.harvard.edu/pin/authenticate?__authen_application=FAS_CS_FACEBOOK&original_request=/ searchform , which is offered on the my.harvard webpage, though it does require pin access. I am sorry, I am new to this, I just maintain my belief that something should be mentioned about this, because it is relevant to the whole Liz Murray story.~~ Noah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.211.86 (talk • contribs) 23:47, May 27, 2007 (UTC).

Hi, Noah. Before I say anything else, if you comment again; please sign your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~. It is tedious to have to add the unsigned template.

From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

There is nothing more to say about it. -- Joie de Vivre 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not so much OR, but my email is definitely not an independently verifiable source so I understand. I'm curious...did you get in touch with Murray yet? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I emailed her but she did not reply. As I said, Murray is under no obligation to clarify her educational status. I guess you will just have to wait for her to graduate. Joie de Vivre 16:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. She didn't reply to my second email for more clarification too... :) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)