Talk:Sharyl Attkisson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Snopes stays? Attkisson rebuttal is required per WP:BLPPUBLIC

Per WP:BLPPUBLIC "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported" I have added the following to the Snopes paragraph in the "anti vaccine reporting" in this edit. [It seems to already been removed within minutes. It's up to you, editors, to abide by policy and uphold NPOV, or to blatantly choose not to. I'm done here.]

Attkisson responded to criticism of the episode and her reporting in a January 2019 post claiming that Snopes "fabricated claims that were never made, [and] debunks the fabricated claims". She observes that ultimately they agree with the "essence" of her report and with Zimmerman's claim, with Snopess concluding "Zimmerman, a scientist with serious credentials who was once a government expert on vaccines, believes that narrow circumstances might exist in which the combination of pre-existing mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccination could trigger ASD."

I have also taken the cherry picked claims by Snopes out of WP's voice, and properly attributed the quotation to RFK Jr. As well I added link to report in question.

This is policy, and I should not find myself alone in trying to uphold it. I am also puzzled by the fact that no one has challenged the addition of a random blogger in this edit to bolster the Snopes claims with his opinion. This is a violation of WP:BLP and I expect editors not to sit by silently per WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

• is unsourced or poorly sourced;
• is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research);
• relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP petrarchan47คุก 21:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Editors, the entirety of my edit, including adding Sharyl's defense and another quotation from the Snopes piece above, was just removed with "no one agrees with you". Is this true? what is the justification for not allowing Sharyl's defense and my other changes? Thank you. petrarchan47คุก 21:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Petra, you do not know what you are talking about. Wikipedia is not obligated to publish fringe conspiracy theories or pseudoscience. WP:BLPPUBLIC clearly refers to personal scandals - like affairs, divorces, criminal accusations etc. In fact, the examples it gives are affairs and divorces. It does not apply to someone spreading inaccurate information or pseudosicence: we arne't obligated to air Alex Jones's refutations on the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory, for example. You are cherry-picking policy to try and ram through your proposed changes and it's beginning to be disruptive. You are blatantly violating WP:BRD and consensus being developed by discussion by trying to ram this stuff through. Maybe you should question more about why you are alone on this: perhaps it is because you are in the wrong here.

As for your other changes: David Gorski is not a "random blogger". He is a doctor and professor - in other words and his views are well-documented and generally is authoritative as an expert on medical issues. Binksternet proposed his inclusion and I accepted it. Considering your previous contesting of Snopes as a source - one that RS/N seems to have roundly rejected - I would question your claims against this source. I would highly advise Petrarchan47 to revert their disruptive revisions per WP:BRD. It is BRD, not BRRRRRRRRRD. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Additionally: ජපස noted that Petrarchan47 is indefinitely topic banned from GMOs discussions due to his advocacy of pseudoscience. His edits here display a similar pattern and I would highly suggest Petrarchan stop disrupting this page by trying to force through edits against consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

ජපස was mistaken. petrarchan47คุก 08:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think your edit provides a false balance between Snopes and Attkisson. The normal rebuttal goes along these links: "John does was charged with six murders and has pleaded not guilty." TFD (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

While there's room to discuss the wording, the consensus at BLP/N in the past is that we include some mention of a subject's denial of allegations where they have specifically done so. - Bilby (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Toa and TFD. Rebuttals by BLP subjects are only appropriate for allegations and incidents. It does not apply to reliable sources' descriptions of fringe theories. If it did, WP:FRINGE would be effectively eviscerated. BLPs do not get some automatic right to rebut everything they disagree with on their Wikipedia page. R2 (bleep) 22:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

She's responding to direct accusations that she mischaracterised claims. As a BLP, the subject's denial of this should be included. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

BLPs do not get an automatic veto or rebuttal. If Donald Trump wrote an op-Ed saying he had the best inauguration crowd ever and Wikipedia is wrong, are we obligated to include that? Of course not. Toa Nidhiki05 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Whenever this is raised at BLP/N,if we publish accusations against a subject of a BLP, and that subject has specifically responded to those accusations, we should note that response. We don't need to spend a lot of time on it,but something saying that they disagree is fair and neutral. - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's policy. WP:WELLKNOWN: If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s literally the exact same policy Petra cited, and it’s just as inaccurate as when she said it. Attkisson is not being accused of an affair or a crime or a divorce. Her reporting is being criticized and that is not covered. We are not obligated to print conspiracy theories or FRINGE claims. Toa Nidhiki05 00:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

We are accusing a journalist of misrepresenting a source. She has specifically denied doing so. Therefore, we need to make some acknowledgement of her denial, especially considering the amount of weight we've given this. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

We are accusing a journalist of misrepresenting a source

"We" are doing no such thing. Reliable sources are. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It is in the article, she has denied it, and we just need to add "Attkinsson has denied mischaracterizing Zimmerman's statements in the report." We don't need to dedicate much space to it - just acknowledge that she did so.- Bilby (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if WP:CIR may apply here because the reasoning for denying inclusion of a BLP's denial is off the charts. Something doesn't seem quite right. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You literally misquoted policy but saying the people who disagree with you are incompetent? Are you serious? Toa Nidhiki05 02:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• It’s clear to me that we’re not going resolve the dispute about Attkisson’s rebuttal among the current participants, especially now that competence has been questioned. R2 (bleep) 03:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Why not try an RFC to bring in new editors with new points of view on the issue? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Cullen, there is an RfC still ongoing above this discussion, and if I'm not mistaken, there's a connection. We've got an admin here, Bilby, trying to explain that BLP policy says we include a person's denial when there are unsubtantiated/uncorroborated allegations made against them, so I'm finding it difficult to believe editors are refusing to include it. This goes beyond an RfC and becomes a BLP violation, don't you think? Perhaps it should go to BLPN if you're unsure it's a vio. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP isn't some kind of trump card that overrides RfCs or other means of building consensus. R2 (bleep) 04:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, actually it does - BLP clearly states: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR). When considering strict adherence to NPOV, it clearly states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. There are policy vios in this article, among the worst being WP:BLPCOI. I suggest you strike whatever you may have said that may be considered noncompliant as it may reflect badly on your editing if this ends up at a noticeboard. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not interested in engaging in a policy debate with you, I don't appreciate the personalization and threats, and I certainly am not going to strike anything in response to them. The content dispute has been resolved, so please drop it. R2 (bleep) 19:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also: it’s not an allegation, and it’s unit unsubstantiated or uncorroborated. Atsme’s comment doesn’t make any sense. Toa Nidhiki05 06:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically yes, BLP overrides local consensus. - Bilby (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That assumes WP:BLPPUBLIC applies to standard criticism from reliable sources instead of comments on things like affairs, divorces, criminal allegations, or personal scandals. You still haven’t answered my question, by the way - is Alex Jones entitled to a platform here to rebut the scientific and historical consensus on vaccines and autism, the Sandy Hook truthers, and 9/11 conspiracy theories? Because that is what your interpretation demands. Hell, it could demand a line by line critique by Attkisson of this entire page be included because “she has a right to denial”. Toa Nidhiki05 12:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex Jones has nothing to do with the issue, and this is a straw man. WP:BLPPUBLIC applies to our coverage of allegations - the specific text is:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

It makes no mention of the types of allegations that it should apply to. - Bilby (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s not a straw man. I’m asking how your interpretation would apply in that circumstance and you either won’t or can’t answer it. From what I can tell, your interpretation would demand he be allowed to deny criticism of his support 9/11 conspiracy theories or the Sandy Hook shooting. Am I wrong there?

It actually does, though - it gives the examples of a “messy divorce” and an affair. Aka, personal scandals - not legitimate critiques of professional work, and not advocacy of presudoscience or FRINGE theories. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It also makes no mention of any right or expectation of rebuttal that I can see: that "right" has been invented out of whole cloth. Any rebuttal is the job of reliable sources, not Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 13:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are examples, but that doesn't mean they are the only allegations which are relevant. The "rebuttal" is in the "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported". As to the straw man, the example of Allan Jones is discussing responses to criticism. That has not been the issue with this article. The issue here is her response to the single allegation that she mischaraterized a source in a story that she aired. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Two admins, and I agree with Bilby. Rklawton (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've raised it on WP:BLPN. It seemed like a sensible next step. - Bilby (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Snopes article should be added back in. ♟♙ (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrator assistance request

El_C, I am on the losing end of the consensus at WP:BLPN#Sharyl Attkisson. Could you please add the phrase at the end of the paragraph about Zimmerman: Attkinsson has denied mischaracterizing Zimmerman's statements in her report. Cite to this source. R2 (bleep) 19:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Snopes and Gorski BLP/N

Weigh in at WP:BLPN petrarchan47คุก 08:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You have got to be ducking kidding me. Toa Nidhiki05 10:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 June 2019 Suggestion

Improving a citation from a WP:BAREURL to a {{cite web}} format.

From:

<ref>[https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/06/wikipedias-pharma-industry-agenda-editors-at-it-again/sharylattkisson.com]</ref>

to:

<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/06/wikipedias-pharma-industry-agenda-editors-at-it-again/ |title=Wikipedia’s Pharma Industry Agenda Editors–at it again. |first=Sharyl |last=Attkisson |website=sharylattkisson.com |date=2019-06-17 |accessdate=2019-06-28}}</ref>

Peaceray (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE

I noticed this edit [3] by Toa Nidhiki05 which I agree with. However, since the lead now is mostly cited, I think it's better to add refs to this too, otherwise it just looks uncited to the general reader. Controversial articles tend to go "cite the lead as well". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Added four citations to the lede and reworded slightly to be clearer that she has been criticized for this. Toa Nidhiki05 12:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Zimmerman has rejected Attkisson’s claims. This must be included per WP:BLPPUBLIC

Per the earlier discussion, Attkisson’s response has been included. However, there is no response listed Zimmerman, who has denied Attkisson’s claims. Per WP:BLPPUBLIC, this must be immediately added as he has a right to a rebuttal. I propose the following wording:

Attkinsson has, denied mischaracterizing Zimmerman's statements in her report, but Zimmerman has said he was misrepresented.

Toa Nidhiki05 11:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Zimmerman doesn't mention Attkisson. - Bilby (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No other reporter focused on his affidavit at the time. This is very clearly a response to Attkisson as it distances him away from anti-vaccines views. Not including this leaves the false impression he agrees with how he was represented, which he clearly does not - and per WP:BLPPUBLIC, this is not optional. It must be included. He has a right to rebuttal. Toa Nidhiki05 11:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

He refers to "some media reports", but makes no mention as to whether or not Attkisson was one of them. - Bilby (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

My proposed text does not say that. Regardless, it must be included per BLPPUBLIC and that is not optional. Toa Nidhiki05 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your proposed text says that Zimmerman has claimed he was misrepresented by Attkisson, however Zimmerman makes no mention of Attkisson. He may have intended this to be in regard to her, but it he doesn't make this clear. - Bilby (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Then propose a different wording, but this must be included. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that he doesn't mention Attkisson at all, it is difficult to insert this into something specifically about Attkisson. We already make a very strong statement that she misrepresents Zimmerman, even though people like Gorski have claimed that she didn't, so I'm not sure how much more can say. It would fit well into an article about media coverage of vaccine-autism claims, or in an article about Zimmerman if we had one. - Bilby (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Bilby. If Zimmerman had specifically said Attkisson's report was wrong, we'd put it in, but he didn't. It's Original Research to say "well, we know that there weren't any other reports (even though he specifically says multiple reports!), so he must be talking about this one". --GRuban (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose this change. The current text doesn't suggest Zimmerman did anything wrong, so there's nothing to rebut. R2 (bleep) 16:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That being said, I appreciate Toa bringing this to our attention. The fact that Attkisson's primary witness, so to speak, complained after the fact that Attkisson had mischaracterized his sworn statement reflects very poorly on Attkisson's reporting skills and judgment. Granted, Zimmerman declined an interview request. However Attkisson appears to rely exclusively on anti-vaccine advocates and apparently did not consult a single medical expert. This seems inexcusable to me. It's why I described the piece earlier as "advocacy journalism at best." R2 (bleep) 17:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not she mischaracterised Zimmerman depends on who you ask - Gorski, who is clearly not a fan, argues that she did not. The issue is complex and messy. - Bilby (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect, this is false and damaging. Dr. Zimmerman made no such "rejection" and I (Attkisson) made no "claims" in my report at all; I simply reported the facts in Dr. Zimmerman's sworn affidavit and also posted his affidavit, which clearly shows no misinterpretation (people can see for themselves). I quoted him word for word. No "claims" on my part and no mischaracterization. Dr. Zimmerman was upset that other media mischaracterized my report and his affidavit after the fact. You can keep making false interpretations in your own mind, but it doesn't reflect well upon you (pretending to know what people mean and are thinking; inferring conclusions from things that are never said, etc.) As for the continual false accusation that I never include opposing views etc.: anyone who bothers to actually look at my reporting can see that I always ask for opposing views, even when no interview is given, I still include opposing information in my reporting, I have repeatedly stated that vaccines have saved many lives, I link to the CDC vaccination schedule and information among my vaccine reporting, I have interviewed Dr. Offit more than once and let him give his views (as you may know when he falsely libeled me after one story, the Orange County Register retracted his comments), I have interviewed CDC officials repeatedly. Many pro-vaccine scientists share the view that vaccines can and do cause autism in a vulnerable subset of children (Dr. Zimmerman, CDC's Dr. Frank DeStefano, former head of National Institutes of Health Dr. Bernadine Healy, and many more) so the poorly-informed statements on this page to the contrary are simply not true. That having been said, I understand you can do as you wish regardless of the facts. Obviously many people here wish to use my biographical page to controversialize and litigate the vaccine-autism issue.

Also (still Sharyl here), with all due respect, how can even the vaccine industry proponents on this page support this false, unattributed opinion on my page: "In a January 2019 episode of her television show Full Measure, Attkisson mischaracterized statements made in 2007 by a medical expert, Andrew Zimmerman, regarding a hypothetical relationship between vaccines and autism." Stating that I, as a journalist, mischaracterize anyone in my reporting is a very serious false accusation and potentially cuts at the heart of my reputation as a journalist. The statement is clearly an editor's biased opinion, but it is stated as if a proven fact, not an opinion. If anything, even the vaccine industry proponents should agree it should read more like: "SOME UNNAMED (or name them) CRITICS CLAIM THAT In a January 2019 episode of her television show Full Measure, Attkisson mischaracterized statements made in 2007 by a medical expert, Andrew Zimmerman, regarding a hypothetical relationship between vaccines and autism." Additionally, in the interest of neutrality, why all the commentary against my reporting on vaccines autism from known critics and vaccine industry supporters-- but none of the commentary (in the interest of neutrality) from the vast numbers who complimented the reporting for its accuracy, why no mention of the fact that my vaccine reporting has been cited in the New England Journal of Medicine, why leave out that it has received national recognition from independent journalism awards? Thank you for your consideration and best wishes to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

my vaccine reporting has been cited in the New England Journal of Medicine Link please? R2 (bleep) 06:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I found a site that published the NEJM article wherein it there's mention of Attkisson interviewing Healy on CBS Evening News, and in that article is a link to the CBS article. And in the NEJM cited References is CBS News The “open question” on vaccines and autism. May 2008. (Accessed July 18, 2008, at http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/12/couricandco/entry4090144.shtml.) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned on BLPN, there's a strong possibility that the Age of Autism site has violated the NEJM copyright on the article they copied, and it should not be linked on Wikipedia per WP:COPYLINK

As for the question at hand, that Attkisson's program/story was mentioned in correspondence in the NEJM doesn't mean that it was cited there. Citing has a particular meaning in academic publishing, which is roughly that the knowledge in the cited (original) work is being used in the citing (new) work. It is more accurate to say that Attkisson's show was mentioned in correspondences in NEJM, which also differentiates these opinion pieces from peer-reviewed works. Ca2james (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm still hoping we can identify the NEJM article Attkisson mentioned. I'm not having any luck. R2 (bleep) 04:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

For clarity:

1. R2 - I've already provided the link but here it is again. I also provided a link directly to the references, but you can look for yourself under at that link. It clearly cites the CBS-Attkisson report, Footnote 4, under Letters which is Poling's letter. All of which I provided above. Poling sued and won his case.
2. Ca2james - there is not a "strong possibility that the Age of Autism has violated the NEJM copyright". This is not your first unwarranted concern about copyvio regarding info I have provided, and it would prove far more helpful to this discussion if you did the research prior to expressing unneccessary concern. See Reprints, and the sidebar of the journal which provides for sharing the article link. NEMJ also offers Rights Link, and the text included in the Age of Autism article is in the public domain as a statement by Jon Poling, MD about his daughter's case. Other copyvio free material is information published by the government such as this linked .pdf file that was included in the reference footnotes of the site you allege may have committed a copyvio. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Atsme, but I'm confused. I was looking for an NEJM source that cited Attkisson, as she described in her comment. Unless I've missed something, this NEJM source doesn't cite Attkisson. And the Age of Autism source you mentioned isn't published by NEJM. Please tell me what I'm missing. R2 (bleep) 22:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

...my vaccine reporting has been cited in the New England Journal of Medicine - it was cited in the Journal but not "by" the Journal, I don't think, unless they went through Poling's letter and cited it. In that letter published in the Journal, footnote 4 cites this piece by Attkisson. I'm thinking that's what she meant when she said her reporting "has been cited in the New England Journal of Medicine." It is a factual statement. You have to open the Letters section. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the phrasing "has been cited in" is misleading as it implies that the work was used in an article peer-reviewed by the NEJM which is not the case; the program and interview were only mentioned in a Correspondence opinion. Using "has been cited in" appears to give more legitimacy to the program in question and its subject than has been received. That said, I don't think anyone is thinking to include anything that says her program was mentioned in the NEJM? Ca2james (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of copyvio or not, I object to any link to Age of Autism as it is an anti-vaccine conspiracy website that promotes pseudoscience. Toa Nidhiki05 13:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Toa, is that site listed on our banned sources? The reason I mentioned it is because an editor was having trouble finding the links to NEJM and CBS, and they happen to be in that article in one spot. I'm not here to argue the science. I'm simply trying to get the article right. For some reason, there's a mistaken belief that just because a secondary source includes something in an article, it's automatically ok to include it in the pedia. Not so - while we are responsible for WP:V, good editors should exercise at least a semblance of responsible corroboration to ensure the cited source has done their homework, especially when only 1 or 2 sources are making exceptional claims. That's why we have WP:EXCEPTIONAL. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I am not accusing you of engaging in a Copyvio or of knowingly posting something against policy. I'm saying the the Age of Autism article, which apparently reproduces the NEJM correspondence without acknowledging that they have permission from the copyright holder (NEJM's publisher) to do so, is likely violating NEJM publisher's copyright. Nothing you've linked to says otherwise, and nothing there says the correspondence is in the public domain; they all just say that the correspondence can be reprinted with permission and give mechanisms for doing so.
Since there are no statements on the Age of Autism article saying that the NEJM correspondence is reproduced with permission, we conservatively assume that it has not been reproduced with permission, which in turn implies that they have violated the rights of the copyright holder. And WP:COPYLINK says we should not link to sites which have violated another's copyright. I hope this clears things up. Ca2james (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. As best as I can tell, this source is not a copy-paste or a re-print of any anything published by the NEJM. R2 (bleep) 23:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be right - I thought I remembered reading what appeared to be text of the NEJM correspondence, but looking at it again I have no idea where I got that idea. Apologies for the confusion. Ca2james (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Refactor proposal

The organization of this article could stand some improvement. I propose we get rid of the Career + chronological sectioning scheme and replace it with "Early career," "CBS News," "Post-CBS career" (with "Anti-vaccine reporting" subsection), "Computer hacking claims" (though this could arguably fit as a subsection of "CBS News"), and "Awards." All top level, as Attkisson is only known for her career; anything not career-related can go into "Personal life." R2 (bleep) 21:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got my support. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please! Ca2james (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Questions and final Missing Awards notes etc. With Thanks!

This is Sharyl. Thank you to all who have tried to address issues and make this biography reflect accurate facts and be neutral. I will be signing off this project for the time being, as I have to spend time on other work.

A few final notes:

It doesn't seem to me that other journalists' bios have the departure from their previous job (in this case 5 years ago) at the top of their bio. It's not particularly objectionable, it just seems to deviate from the format for other journalists.

I do "write" but my primary occupation is not "writer," it has been "journalist" for about 40 years and "investigative journalist" for about 15 years. My degree was in Broadcast Journalism in the Journalism college.

I did not go to "Riverdale" High School (typo): it's "Riverview."

Personal life update: I am now a 5th Degree "Master" level black belt in TaeKwonDo.

Career note update: I am a contributor to Real Clear Politics and The Hill.

My name is misspelled on occasion on the bio page.

Dr. Zimmerman was absolutely not talking about my reporting when he said his views were misrepresented; he was talking about other media outlets misrepresenting my reporting and his views and intentions. He was widely disparaged and falsely characterized by these media reports and tweets. There was a lot of inaccurate and false spin about my story after it aired, which is very typical-- and was upsetting to him.

The following are still missing from my bio or have been deleted, though comparable awards in different years are included:

2003 Emmy Award Nomination for Investigating Dangers of certain prescription drugs and vaccines; and conflicts of interest in medical industry.  (Awarded in 2003 for 2002 work) http://cdn.emmyonline.org/news_24th_nominations.pdf

2008 Finalist for Gerald Loeb business awards for “Earmarks”  (Awarded in 2008 for 2007 work) https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/media-relations/2008/loeb-finalists-2008

2009 RTNDA-Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence (CBS team award) (Awarded in 2009 for 2008 work) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-wins-murrow-awards/

2010 Investigative Reporter and Editors Finalist Award for "Investigating TARP." https://ire.org/awards/ire-awards/winners/2009-ire-awards-winners/   2010 Loeb finalist for Television Breaking News for “Follow the Money: Bailout Investigation." https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100528005901/en/2010-Gerald-Loeb-Award-Finalists-News-Services

2013 Daytime Emmy Award as part of CBS Sunday Morning team Outstanding Morning Program for "Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.” http://emmyonline.com/day_40th_nominations   2016 Finalist Gerald Loeb business awards for “Taxpayer Beware” https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160519005496/en/2016-Gerald-Loeb-Award-Finalists-Announced-UCLA

I was invited to be a News and Documentary Emmy Award presenter in 2013 https://www.emmys.com/news/awards-news/national-academy-announces-news-documentary-emmy-award-winners

Additional note for your consideration: You are the ones who argued that minor or less recognized and less prestigious awards do not belong on a bio, so by your standard, this award that nobody has heard of shouldn't be listed -- but obviously it remains because certain Wikipedia editors are trying to falsely imply I am conservative or my reporting is somehow political: "In 2012, CBS News accepted an Investigative Reporting Award given to Attkisson's reporting on ATF's Fast and Furious gunwalker controversy from Accuracy in Media, a conservative news media watchdog group." Your call, of course on whether it is appropriate given the standard you've set. I don't mind either way, it just implies a bias on your part (in my opinion).

For anyone who is interested, please refer to this article regarding other problems or mischaracterizations on the biographical page: https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/06/wikipedia-weaponization-a-dissection-of-bias/

Thank you and best wishes to all of you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Zimmerman was absolutely not talking about my reporting when he said his views were misrepresented; he was talking about other media outlets misrepresenting my reporting and his views and intentions. He was widely disparaged and falsely characterized by these media reports and tweets. There was a lot of inaccurate and false spin about my story after it aired, which is very typical-- and was upsetting to him. Links, please? R2 (bleep) 17:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to find these sources, Sharyl! This is exactly what I requested of other editors in previous edits so I have no issue with adding any of these. Given the page is protected right now, we will need someone to add the text but we can write it here and have them add it.

I will say, however, that I reject any claims I am biased against conservatives. I am, in fact, a conservative as noted on my talk page (specifically a libertarian-leaning classical liberal) and am a veteran in the resistance of the unjust effort nearly a decade ago to delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. My objection to minor awards is specifically grouping them with mainstream journalism awards and that some of the awards might not be notable in general - some, not all. Conservative awards might be notable, as might liberal ones, but they aren’t in the same hemisphere as legitimate journalistic honors. Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So, at age 10 you were defending WPConservatism? This doesn't seem likely. petrarchan47คุก 19:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m 24. The WP:CONSERVATISM wars were 2011-2012 or so, and I have receipts. I was probably second only to Lionelt (the founder) in terms of activity on the project and in defense of the project. I have the second most edits on the talk page and the most added text by a substantial margin. I was 16 or 17 then. But I appreciate your completely unnecessary response. Toa Nidhiki05 20:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In my view, it was unnecessary to mention your political leanings since in no way does that counter claims your editing here has not been NPOV compliant, it's a distraction from the main point. If, for instance, one was biased against the BLP subject, they could edit in ways that don't align with their own position, but paint the subject in a bad light, if the latter was their primary goal. petrarchan47คุก 22:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrelevant because she said editors were specifically trying to remove the conservative awards because they think conservative awards are bad - and I'm one of the people who vocally opposed including them in the same section. She's also specifically attacked so-called agenda editors. I'm trying to demonstrate to Sharyl that this isn't a political vendetta, but also that I have seen and experienced people with a political vendetta - and this isn't it. Your comment was unnecessary and frankly insulting. I did not direct the comment at you, and I did not need to explain it to you. Toa Nidhiki05 23:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The page protection is set to expire tomorrow, so I'm inclined to wait rather than requesting admin assistance. R2 (bleep) 18:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Emmy and Murrow awards obviously go in the article (together with the actual title of the piece receiving the nomination or award, not just a summary of the piece). However, being an award presenter is just WP:PUFFERY here and should not be included. Being invited to speak or present somewhere is not an honour comparable to being nominated for (or winning!) a major award like an Emmy or Murrow. Ca2james (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, actually it's recognition in her career/job, not puffery. You might want to read WP:PUFFERY again. If she became a presenter and it's verifiable in a RS, we include it. What we don't include is the puffery text, like something along the line of..."Attkisson was chosen to be the presenter at yada yada because of her outstanding investigative journalism over the years that is unsurpassed by another other in her field." That is puffery 🦚 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't PUFFERY (which concerns only word choice). But it is UNDUE. Attkisson has won Emmys, which are major awards (and she's won other major awards). Presenting an Emmy is not a major award and it's nowhere near on par with winning such an award (on a scale of "everyday event" to "winning an Emmy", presenting an unspecified Emmy is not quite an everyday event but it's quite a few notches below "winning an Emmy"). If Attkisson had not won all these major awards, it might make sense to include something tangentially related to the Emmys, like presenting one, in the list. But in this case, my thinking is that the only reason to include such a comparatively minor event in a list of major awards would be if there were independent secondary sources (not press releases or Attkisson's own site) covering it. Afaik (and please do correct me if I'm wrong), there are no independent secondary sources noting the fact that she presented an Emmy one time.
On a related topic, if there is going to be a separate awards section, we should figure out inclusion criteria for it. Will it be just major awards (Emmys, Murrows)? Or do we include major awards along with minor awards that have some minimum level of independent reliable sourcing? Or some other criteria? Thoughts? Ca2james (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A section should be removed

Attkisson has said that she favors vaccinating children but that research suggests that "small subset of children" have immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to vaccines.[1] She has said that pharmaceutical companies have discouraged research into a possible vaccine-autism link, and that they pressured CBS News not to run stories about it.[49]

This section is highly misleading and should be removed, or at the very least trimmed to something like this:

Attkisson has said that she favors vaccinating children but that a "small subset of children" have immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to vaccines.

The primary reasons this are that there is no evidence that Big Pharma has pressured CBS to not run stories about vaccines aside from Attkisson’s claim (and she is not a reliable source on this issue), and an anonymous source from CBS in the Daily Beast piece rejected that claim. This should either be removed entirely or the anonymous source should be noted. Additionally, the part about “research suggesting” a link is also clearly incorrect. I fear the current wording might confuse readers into thinking there is a link, when there is not. Toa Nidhiki05 12:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That content should remain because it was mentioned by an independent reliable source (The Daily Beast), and it's significant because it fits a broader pattern related of conspiracy theorizing--consistent with other aspects of Attkisson's biography, as well as her behavior on this talk page. However, it should be balanced with the following from the same Daily Beast source: Never mind that a CBS News veteran, who asked not to be named, says Attkisson’s vaccine-autism reports were eventually killed not because of advertiser pressure, but because they weren’t adequately supported by scientific evidence. R2 (bleep) 17:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That’s fair. My primary concern was that the reader might assume her claim was factual without that balance. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

An addition today sourced to the Daily Beast gives space to an "unnamed source" to call into question Sharyl's claim about why CBS declined to air her vaccine reporting.

While the following was added as "balancing material"[4],

She has said that pharmaceutical companies have discouraged research into a possible vaccine-autism link, and that they pressured CBS News not to run stories about it, although an unnamed "CBS News veteran" told The Daily Beast that CBS declined to air Attkisson's reporting on the subject because of a lack of scientific evidence, not because of commercial pressure.

Inclusion of some distillation of this, from the same article, has been disallowed:

"The fact is, the government has acknowledged there’s a link," Attkisson says, citing the recent admission by a senior Central for Disease Control epidemiologist that he and his colleagues improperly omitted from a 2004 study the data that tended to support such a link. "They simply say it’s not a causal link."

Do editors see this as balanced and fair? petrarchan47คุก 21:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you start a new section? The discussion is literally in the thread above. Toa Nidhiki05 21:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I combined the sections. R2 (bleep) 21:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand your objection, Petrarchan47. Are you saying we disallowed something from the Daily Beast source, so we must disallow everything from that source? R2 (bleep) 21:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The two quotes were or are used in different places and each is subject to WEIGHT considerations. It's entirely possible to allow a comment from a source in one section and to disallow a different comment from the same source in another section. We don't have to include everything from a source. Ca2james (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that "there is a study with a statistically significant result" does not mean "there is a link". Amateurs, like Attkisson, tend to believe that such a study proves there is a link, while professional scientists are unimpressed because they know many reasons why studies can turn up, and many cases of studies having turned up, significant although there is no underlying effect. The foremost reason is the definition of statistical significance itself. When a "senior Central for Disease Control epidemiologist" "admits" omitting a significant result, one cannot deduce he believes there is a link. That cultural difference between scientists and non-scientists is enough to cause misunderstandings and misrepresentations. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Also just noting, my initial question was about balance. The addition of a claim from an unnamed source that essentially accused Attkisson of having a tenuous relationship with the truth, coupled with the fact that Attkisson has not been allowed any explanation in her bio about why she reported what she did, is not "balancing" the article, as was claimed in the edit summary*. From my experience, it is abnormal to devote 3 paragraphs to criticism in a BLP whilst reverting even the most mundane attempts to provide some (required) balance with a rebuttal or explanation if available. Yes, we now have one line mentioning that she denies one of the allegations from Snopes, but we still make the allegations in WP's voice, and R2 just added another.

For the record, my attempts to create balance:

• (reverted) "however in an interview with The Daily Beast, Attkisson states that she believes the U.S. Government has recognized a link, though they specify it isn't causal."*
• (reverted) put claim in Snopes' voice, added mundane mention of Attkisson's rebuttal *
• (reverted) put claims in Snopes' voice, added link to episode being discussed; put RFK Jr's quotaion in his own voice; added refutation of claim by Attkisson using a portion of the Snopes article (a portion ignored in our summary) *

I have not been allowed to make one change to the vaccine section. My first edits here were to update the computer hacking section, which is also a controversial topic; they were allowed to remain intact, as was my update to the Lede image. The problems only arise when trying to correct the vaccine section which is bloated with criticism to a degree that makes the entire article and website look a bit ridiculous and questionable. petrarchan47คุก 19:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm happy to remove the line - we don't need to repeat everything a subject says, and countering it with an anonymous commentator who may not have anything to do with it nor any special knowledge is not a decent response. Just leave both out. - Bilby (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The allegation is significant, it's a major theme in Attkisson's work, and it has been covered by independent sources. The fact that an anonymous CBS source denied it doesn't make it less worthy of inclusion. R2 (bleep) 15:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, R2, I didn't want to move your comment; we were editing at the same time. It probably belongs in the poll. petrarchan47คุก 19:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that it is significant? Has it been covered in multiple reliable sources? - Bilby (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize we needed more than one? It was covered by a reliable independent source, and it was a major aspect of the Full Measure episode. The entire second half was about it. R2 (bleep) 20:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

My primary concern is the inclusion of contentious material stated as fact in WikiVoice. That is a no-no. It must be restated using in-text attribution to the person or source that made the claim/allegation/stated opinion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that rule. R2 (bleep) 21:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've watched the episode, but can't find where she mentions CBS. At any rate, the issue is that our only response to the CBS claim is poor one (an anonymous source who may or may not be a position to know something about the issue), it seems better on balance not to mention it. We don't generally add every opinion held by a subject. - Bilby (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

But we also don’t generally add unchecked and unsubstantiated fringe theories - like CBS being pressured by the vaccine industry to not run stories linking vaccines and autism - unchecked.Toa Nidhiki05 12:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant I wanted to remove both the claim and the response. - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That’s an acceptable solution. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed two closely related accusations: (1) that the pharmaceutical industry discouraged scientific research into linkages, and (2) that pharmaceutical advertisers persuaded CBS into changing their programming. Both were mentioned in the Daily Beast story. Attkisson put a lot of attention on #1 in Full Measure. #2 was rebutted by an anonymous "CBS News veteran." Bilby, I understand your position is to exclude both. I'm inclined to include both due to the independent coverage and Attkisson's emphasis on #1. R2 (bleep) 18:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the (seemingly limited) independent coverage is either just repeating her claims or providing questionable responses.We can;t really address the claims,asallwe have is an anonymous source for one, and nothing for the other. If we leave them out our inability to address them isn't a concern. - Bilby (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I will grudging accept this in the interest of obtaining an actionable consensus. R2 (bleep) 02:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This is why straw polls are helpful - but let me ask this way, is anyone here opposed to the removal of these two sentences? petrarchan47คุก 02:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Straw poll: Just leave both out

Should the following be removed from the "Anti vaccine reporting" section, per Bilby above?

She has said that pharmaceutical companies have discouraged research into a possible vaccine-autism link, and that they pressured CBS News not to run stories about it, although an unnamed "CBS News veteran" told The Daily Beast that CBS declined to air Attkisson's reporting on the subject because of a lack of scientific evidence, not because of commercial pressure.

Support petrarchan47คุก 19:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the poll? I thought we were having a discussion. R2 (bleep) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree. I think Petrarchan likes doing RfCs but I really don’t see a need for one here at the moment. Toa Nidhiki05 12:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Support removal. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Atsme The sentences were removed as per the thread just above. petrarchan47คุก 21:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Atkinson is a well documented antivaxer, we should not whitewash that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.160 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: awards

Question: Should Attikisson's noteworthy awards (and nominations) be moved to a dedicated "Recognition" section?

The consensus is yes.

Question: Is Attkisson's personal website a reliable WP:ABOUTSELF source for this content?

There is a rough consensus that Attkisson's personal website should not be used as a source for the awards per WP:UNDUE and since it would be "unduly self-serving".

Cunard (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

Attkisson's self-published bio lists awards she has received, such as Emmys, Emmy nominations, and RTDNA Murrow awards.

1. Should Attikisson's noteworthy awards (and nominations) be moved to a dedicated "Recognition" section?
2. Is Attkisson's personal website a reliable WP:ABOUTSELF source for this content?

R2 (bleep) 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes to both. Attkisson's Emmys, Emmy nominations, and Murrows are all noteworthy, as evidenced by reliable independent sources such as Politico ([5], [6]). Even this shorter list of awards/nominations is too long to be integrated comfortably into a prose section about her career. As for the reliability of her website, WP:ABOUTSELF is clear that a subject's published, uncontroversial statements about themselves are acceptable sources. This material is not unduly self-serving. Whatever one thinks of her views, Attkisson is an established, professional journalist. I see no reason to believe that she'd be dishonest about the awards she's received. R2 (bleep) 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, No to 2 The notable awards in her bio should be removed from her body and moved to a new awards or recognition section. However, Attkisson is clearly not a reliable source for her own awards; to suggest citing a fake Wikipedia article that criticizes this one for being “biased” is frankly silly. If other awards are to be included out of the list she provided, they should be reliably sourced before inclusion, and the burden is on the person who wants to add them to find them. Using her website violates lines 1-4 of WP:ABOUTSELF. Toa Nidhiki05 18:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fake Wikipedia article? R2 (bleep) 18:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, assumed you cited to her “Wikipedia Correction Project” article. My mistake. She must have copied it from her website’s bio and then pasted it here and to the WCP article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral on 1, No to 2. I ~agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that it would fail at least 1-3 WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• YES to First, NO to Second: Awards, honors, and such are routinely placed in separate sections of a bio article, so I agree with the separation/movement. As for the second, a self-published/written web page is not a reliable source for awards, because it fails the first test under the WP:ABOUTSELF criteria: Self-published [...] sources may be used as sources of information about themselves... so long as that the material is [not] unduly self-serving. (emphasis added). The inclusion of these awards such as these are unquestionably self-serving, if they are only sourced by the subject of the article.

-Trumblej1986 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes to both - per our PAGs. No. 1 can be cited to RS. No. 2 is very clear in WP:ABOUTSELF. She would probably also qualify as an expert per WP:SELFPUBLISH. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, No to 2. Notable awards should be listed, but, as we have required with other biographies, independent RS must be used. SELFPUB should not be used for puffing up a resume ("unduly self-serving" is the wording). Let other sources do that ("Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."). -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  Please re-read the guideline for Self-published. We can use info she has published for dates, etc. It has nothing to do with puffery. Not quite sure where things got off track, but please back track. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF: "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" I would say that "I have won these Emmys and other awards" are both self-serving and exceptional, most people don't win Emmys. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Unduly is defined as unwarranted or excessive and when there is no way to corroborate the claim, such as her writing on her page that she is the best journalist in the world - now that would be unduly. Do not conflate verifiable accomplishments with undue promotion. As for exceptional, see WP:REDFLAG. Listing highly publicized Emmy Awards that are already documented/published recognition is not an exceptional claim - it is a statement of fact that can be corroborated. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The Emmy Awards are already cited in the article biography to secondary and tertiary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, then the SPS is moot for those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If they are verifiable and highly publicized, why bother with an SPS? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

R2 - maybe strike #2 since the awards are already cited to RS? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This would not resolve the issue as R2 wants the full list of awards that Attkisson has created to be included, and all of them to be cited to her website. This includes a slew of things that either aren’t awards (bestseller lists or nominations), “group awards”, and awards given by partisan or political organizations, not actual journalism awards. The actually notable awards are all cited and included in the body right now - this discussion is over adding more awards, compiled by the BLP subject and sourced to the BLJ subject. Toa Nidhiki05 15:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• YES to First, NO to Second: And that is "noteworthy awards" as in WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION. If there are awards without secondary coverage, it can be reasonable to exclude them. Presumably they'll be included on her personal webpages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Actually, moving the mentions of Emmy awards from the text to a separate section does not sound like a good idea either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes and Yes. Nobs01 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, No to 2 A summary in a separate section of major awards a person has been nominated for or received is something that many bios have. It makes the information easy to find and is more succinctly presented. Major awards include things like Emmys and Murrows, not things like presenting at the Emmys. The awards should also include the actual title of the recognized work. Since all of these major awards can be sourced, it makes sense to use those independent sources rather than Attkisson's own site. Independent sources also be used to develop inclusion criteria for such a list; if independent secondary reliable sources exist for an awards (excluding the Emmys and Murrows,which are obviously major), then they can be included in the list. Ca2james (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Toa Nidhiki05, does this RfC capture the scope of our disagreement, or is there something else I should add? R2 (bleep) 19:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

R2 - it appears there's some confusion over why we would use the self-published sources. For some reason, puffery has eased its way into the discussion. Did you have a particular bit of info you wanted to cite to her page? If so, please share it with the rest of us. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

He wants to cite all of her awards to her website. I want all of the notable awards (which is not all of the awards she mentions) to be cited to reliable secondary or tertiary sources - sources like the awards websites, newspaper coverage, etc. Nobody here has any issue with her as a citation for her birthdate or other non-puffery details, but using a list of awards provided by a BLP subject who has tried to modify this article for years into a puff piece is not good imo, and even ignoring that it still violates WP:ABOUTSELF 1-4. Toa Nidhiki05 23:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that not all awards should be listed - only the most notable per RS &/or WP:V ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have withdrawn the RfC because my position has been repeatedly misrepresented and I don't feel like tracking down participants to explain myself. R2 (bleep) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (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.