Talk:Deborah Frisch

Publications

Please add a list of her scholarly publications. --Eastmain 05:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP

Per WP:BLP, weblogs are not acceptable sources for possibly defamatory information. I have removed all citations to blogs, and suggest that the article be rewriten using only information gleaned from traditional media. JBKramer 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, Court records are absolutly unnaceptable sources unless also backed by "a verifiable secondary source" - IE - not a blog. Please review WP:BLP before editing this article. JBKramer 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

great, congrats for knowing all the rules here buddy, but is there any room for a hearsong? .. .. : yo, that sounds mighty pompous mr kramer, quite acurately toeing the wikiparty line if one is to believe the aetherometry fella who seems to have given up trying to get his foot in the door here. According to him wikipedia is but a pretentious and admittedly mighty powerful way of blogging (policing propaganda on a par with the worst of hitides for fascism is what he makes that out to be here in fact, though he scrupulously avoids mentioning the changes tracery, mighty excellent tool to keep folks from lying, in his long angry rant).

Nice citations

Well, that was fast. Found via google or a news search (Lexis Nexus et al), if I can ask? · XP · 03:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lexis-Nexis. Most people in the US can get this free through their local library or a nearby state university. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Adjunct professor

What is an "adjunct professor". I've never heard the term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's like being a graduate teaching assistant, but without the prestige. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS and blogs

Let me quote from WP:RS (emphasis added is my own).

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

— Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources

. So firstly, it is not verboten but highly discouraged in the main with which I completely agree. However, the issue here is not that we are using a blog to substantiate another claim, but that someone posted that they themselves are stalking Frisch, and as such, the irony of the situation is what is notable. If so, it is the blogs very existence which is what is being referenced, and I believe it should be allowed. Please comment here with any counter-arguments. -- Avi 14:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are engaging in WP:OR, violating WP:NPOV, and not using the encyclopedic tone required of an encyclopedia when you call someone a "blogstalkers." Stop now. JBKramer 14:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is neither OR (as it is stated publicly, not syntheses) nor WP:NPOV as it is the statement of a fact that someone holds an opinion, which is expressly allowed. I am afraid what you are doing is censoring wikipedia, which is just as egregious. Thank you. -- Avi 14:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "irony" is OR, the tone was shit, and it is a phrasing that is POV - you imply negatives. I suggest you go edit an article not about a blog slapfest. JBKramer 14:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that civility and assuming good faith are just as important as any other policy. -- Avi 14:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding crap to the article and I'll stop noting you are adding crap to the article. JBKramer 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe it is “crap”, as you quaintly put it. However, I am willing to poll outside people and get some more consensus on this. Maybe it doesn't belong, but I think the turnaround is notable. I see you feel that "Ironic" is WP:OR; in that I can see your point and agree that it was a poor choice of terms. Thanks. -- Avi 14:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It definitvely is crap. Please poll outside people. The turnaround is not notable because no reliable secondary source has mentioned it. JBKramer 14:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ths article and blogs

There is a difference of opinion as to whether the existence of blogs which are antagonistic to Frisch can be added to the article on the basis of their existance alone, or whether we need to wait for their existence to be reported in secondary sources as they are self-published. The appropriate policies can be found at WP:RS.

Thank you. -- Avi 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

#Support - I think that the existence of the blog itself is what is notable, not that it is being usd to substantiate another claim, and as such can be used as source for mention of Frisch-antagonistic blogs in the article, which is notable as it is a turnaround of what she tried to do to Goldstein. -- Avi 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Moot point, sourced from mainstream media and blog reference removed. -- Avi 15:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Some guy with a blog is not notable unless a reliable source has mentioned him. JBKramer 14:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose It's not notable that individual bloggers have criticized or supported Frisch. TheronJ 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose — bar to entry for blogs is too low. I could start a blog myself this minute whose self-proclaimed purpose is to monitor Frisch and that would be a "fact". Demiurge 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose mostly per JBKramer. I'm not seeing a reliable source referencing the blog in question, but this could change. Jean-Philippe 15:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Moot Point

Article is now sourced from mainstream media, and I have removed the blog entry. -- Avi 15:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Fox News article links to Crossing a Line, which has more coverage. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

I don't want to open up a somewhat closed can of worms, but if the blog in question is linked several times as the source for information in this case by more than one of the top 25 blogs in traffic, doesn't that make is cite-worthy? At least on the topic at hand? Sinsblog 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Frisch's edits include inappropriate personal information

Going through the edit history of this article, it's clear that User:Warriordumot (self-claimed to be Deb Frisch) identified Mr. Goldstein's son by name. These edits were reverted, but the information remains in the edit history. Since the child is clearly a minor, I believe this information should be permanently deleted. Is there a process to request this? Ronnotel 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT, although I'm not sure this precisely qualifies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that hits the spot - removal of nonpublic personal information is on point. Thanks. Ronnotel 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Related: Where is the Wikipedia entry on Jeff Goldstein and Protein Wisdom?

It isn't there, as of just now. Thanks! The Sanity Inspector 20:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As best I can figure, there was some kerfuffle over sourcing from blogs. This set off an edit war and JG and PW were collateral damage. Check the AfD debate. I think they should be nominated for undeletion, but I suspect there may be a fight. Good luck. Ronnotel 21:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

btw - here is the archived afd discussion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Goldstein Ronnotel 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Replaced by redirect

I've just replaced the article by a redirect to Protein Wisdom (blog), into which I will incorporate the relevant content from this article.

There is no good reason for Wikipedia to have an article about Ms Frisch. Her career as an academic meets none of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). There is only one thing she's notable for, and coverage of the Frisch-Goldstein incident cannot form the basis for a decent article. (It can, and should, be covered in a subsection of Protein Wisdom (blog).) Therefore, ISTM, WP:BLP and common decency forbid retaining this article as anything more than a redirect.

I know I've been very WP:BOLD here, so I welcome discussion, further edits, etc. Cheers, CWC 10:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)