A fact from Cathie Dunsford appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Cathie Dunsford(pictured) was unable to find many books about lesbianism in the 1970s, but by the 1980s had herself become a writer and anthologist of lesbian literature?
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article was created or improved during the Women writers & their works edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in September 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I said I'd explain this diff on the article's talk page, so here I am. Dunsford has gotten in touch with me, via a mutual acquaintance, and advised that the page was "not accurate re whakapapa"; her iwi is Te Rarawa not Ngāpuhi. The slightly awkward thing is that her writer profile on Read NZ Te Pou Muramura, itself sourced from the Oxford Companion to New Zealand Literature, says her iwi is Ngāpuhi; these are both generally very reliable sources. I have found a couple of sources showing her iwi as Te Rarawa (both I think self-published author bios that would have been sourced from Dunsford herself), so I've edited the article and referred to those sources. I have also suggested that Dunsford contact Read NZ Te Pou Muramura and ask them to correct her entry.
Obviously, when a reliable secondary source says one thing and the subject of the article says another, we would usually go with the former. But I feel the criteria in WP:BLPSELFPUB are met; there can be no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of Dunsford knowing her own whakapapa and I'd feel uncomfortable suggesting otherwise. There may be however alternative/better ways to handle this, hence I thought I'd post on the talk page and see if anyone else takes a different view. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Just randomly landed here and wanted to say that while I can't point to a guideline for that atm, I agree with your judgement: A person would probably know about her own heritage best, and it is much more likely to expect an error with that in secondary sources. The only case I think this would not apply that I can think of would be if the subject had an incentive to lie about it – maybe a spy or similar, or someone evading a crime? None of these apply here, and I see no reason why her own statements should be doubted, especially with an overall "minor" change as this (I mean, she's not suddenly claiming to be Sino-Swedish or the like).
As a side not, I hope you bring this to DYK as well :) –LordPickleII (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks heaps, really appreciate your thoughtful comments. :) I will definitely nominate for DYK, just need to think of a good hook! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
