Talk:Cathy Areu

Question

How do we go about getting this page (and the one for Catalina Magazine - https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Catalina_(magazine) ) - marked as potentially fraudulent? There is no evidence that I can find that this is even the woman's name. The only results that appear when searching her name are for appearances on Fox News in which she engages in egregious sensationalized behavior. It is likely that she is a Fox News plant. Similarly, 'Catalina Magazine' does not seem to even exist - its web page is a front with no links. Without any evidence or source, can these two pages please be flagged, highlighted as potential frauds, or removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel347x (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You can try to have the page deleted i guess. Or add fact tags. --Malerooster (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I second this as fraudulent. This seems to be someone who was paid under a pseudonym to elicit certain responses. It shouldn't be taken seriously or validated. No search results confirm anything other than supporting evidence of a fake identity and random appearances on obviously one-sided political show extracts. I support deletion or else flagging as highly controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetnamemb (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post link works, confirms her notability, do not delete article

However much her new popularity playing liberal Diane to Tucker Carlson's Sam may irritate the posters above-- I'm think it's fun, a relief from all the political vitriol-- she is who she claims to be. The link to the 2004 Washington Post article featuring her still works. It gives Areu several paragraphs. "The magazine's founder, Cathy Areu, 33, is the daughter of Cuban immigrants, and she briefly freelanced for Latina Style in 2001. If Latina Style is the Hispanic version of Working Woman and Working Mother magazines, Catalina describes itself as "Oprah meets Real Simple meets Ladies Home Journal." Areu taught high school journalism, reported for People and contributed articles to USA Weekend and The Washington Post before starting her magazine in 2002. She sold her 1999 Jetta for $15,000 to help cover the cost of the first issue of the magazine... The magazine had a circulation of about 30,000 in its first year. Last year, the magazine went bimonthly and increased its distribution outlets to Whole Foods Market IP and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and airlines."Profhum (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Past-tensing Catalina

I can find no indication that Catalina has published for a fair while; should we change the "is the founding publisher" to "was the founding publisher" in the first paragraph? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

We could say "In 2001 she founded", etc, as we do in the body. That leaves it open. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability

I've tagged the article for notability. The only things that even look like the sort of reliable sourcing we want for notability are the Washington Post sources... and they were produced at a time when she was writing for them, they allowed her to claim the title of "contributing editor", and one is primarily about the magazine while the other is a matter of the Post handling the very internal concern that they she should not be wielding that title. Beyond that, it's bureaus that appear to represent her as a speaker, or database material, or things she wrote rather than things that are about her. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead section

I removed the arrest of the subject from the lead since it seems to be unbalanced as far as the overall bio of the subject. Thoughts? TIA Malerooster (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

We do put arrests in the lead sections of biographies. There is no rule prohibiting including arrests in lead. See for example TJ Cox. Banana Republic (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Banana Republic, first off, BRD means we are discussing this now after it was just boldly added. If there is consensus for inclusion in the lead, I will be happy to add this back. There is no rule per say about what goes into the lead, its up to editorial discretion and each article is its own, so the example you gave is otherstuffexists. I will also bring this to the BLPN board so we can have other editors give their opinion. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule, we err toward caution when including things that could potentially be seen as denigrating or defamatory for living persons, especially if they're not high profile individuals. This includes criminal allegations. Also, the lead should only include controversies if they're significant and well-documented. It would probably be best to keep this in the body and then revisit the issue if there's a conviction. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the caution here? It's already in the article. If it's in the article, there is no reason why it cannot be in the lead, given that were only talking about adding a single sentence to the lead. It's not as if we are shifting the focus of the lead from all her other biographical accomplishments.

I would say that if she's exonerated, we could remove from the lead the fact that she was ever arrested. Banana Republic (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You're talking about "only" adding a single sentence to the lead of an article that was only one sentence long before it was added, and is only two sentences long now. This accusation is not yet a defining aspect of this person, nor would she have an article if this was the only reason. Barring the intro being muched beefed up (which would require beefing up of the article itself, really), it can stay just in the body of the article until conviction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur with those that say the arrest is not a significant enough part of her biography to merit inclusion in the lead. Any more than is already in the article creates a WP:UNDUE situation; the amount of text in the body is sufficient. Repeating it in the lead is overkill. --Jayron32 17:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that the report of an arrest should not be in the lead, unless there are exceptional circumstances. We have to be careful to avoid undue emphasis on such things in BLP articles. Donald Albury 18:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Does somebody want to tale a stab at rewriting the lead to include the lawsuit that Banana Republic wants included? It would need to be written such as the lawsuit and arrest aren't half of it. --Malerooster (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

updated status?

last thing that was written is that she was being held without bail. however according miami-dade records shows no record of her. any updates?

98.224.129.251 (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

A quick Google search did not show any news articles on the subject since early December. We need reliable sources (and unpublished records do not normally qualify as such under our rules) to update the article. Donald Albury 13:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)