Talk:Denise Spellberg

The Importance of Context

Those interested in the controversy will want to know who the players involved are. Such background information provides illuminating and necessary context for a deeper understanding of how the events unfolded. More, rather than less, information on both Spellberg and Jones should thus be welcome. On the other hand, this information would not fit well in an article devoted to the controversy itself, hence the need for separate entries. Noxmax (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)noxmax

Some General Discussion

This is an article about a heretofore obscure, but well-published, professor at the center of a breaking controversy/news story about freedom of speech.the wall street jouranl hs it today. other papers will have it tomorrow.BatYisrael (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael

I reworded some of the text because Spellberg did not herself cause the cancellation of publication, even though the WSJ article does call her "the instigator." If you read the article carefully, you can see that the email was leaked and was probably not the sole motivation for the cancellation. Clickie (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I support keeping this page. Although, Denise Spellberg was obscure some time ago, her role in the affairs of the the book "Jewel of Medina" simply elevates her from obscurity. 76.247.167.86 (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Eric Ferguson

Jewish name?

Is she jewish? Her name seems to be jewish. 01:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by NeyugnlB (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if she is Jewish, but she is very anti Isreal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.122.217 (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the motive for deletion?

It's fairly obvious this article is important enough not to delete--simply perform a Google search of 'Denise Spellberg' and see what pops up. Random house fears for the safety of its employees in part because of what this woman did. It's interesting that articles like this are marked for deletion so fast. Politically motivated? If the article was about a climatology professor arguing for global warming or about an obscure band, I'm guessing the article would not be marked for deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GirlFromSumy (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• As nominator, I can answer this question: my motivation for nominating this article for deletion was not in any way political, but was based on Wikipedia's policy that where a person becomes famous because of one event, they should be covered in the article about that event, not in an additional separate article - see WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. In this case three basically identical articles were created at the same time by the same author to cover the one event, which is clearly against the policies I have quoted. I would take exactly the same line whether the particular fuss was about climate change or a business scandal or doping in sport or anything else. The argument now is not about whether the event should be covered - it is covered in The Jewel of Medina - but about whether the event needs three articles, and whether Prof. Spellberg, who did not have an article before this event, and is described above by the author as a "heretofore obscure" professor, actually merits an article independently of this brouhaha under the fairly exacting terms of WP:PROF. As for obscure bands, I nominate about five of those a day. JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear JohnCD, I follow your logic and do not doubt your good intentions but editors and judges exist because rules must be interpreted. I came here seeking some information about Prof Spellberg. The story I read didn't mention the censored book's title. Best way to help users find out about Denise Spellberg is by an article titled Denise Spellberg. But the topic blew up into a national controversy this morning, and what I'm worried about is vandalism. Since you're an experienced editor, do you know how to put up the danger signs for that? Best, Profhum (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• When an article is the focus of attention like this, a lot of interested editors will have it on their watch-lists and vandalism will quickly be noticed and reverted. If there is a severe vandalism problem, it's possible to ask at WP:RPP for the page to be semi-protected (so that anonymous IPs can't edit it) or fully protected (so that only admins can edit it). People are reluctant to impose full protection for long, because that freezes the article and it can't develop. Of course, there may also be a situation where two good-faith editors disagree and keep reverting each other's edits; that's called "edit-warring" and there are means like WP:3RR and WP:DISPUTE to cope with that, too. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Jewel of Medina"

There's way to much information on Spellberg's role in the Jewel of Medina controversy compared to the rest of the article. This is blatantly against WP:UNDUE and needs to be remedied, especially since the controversy is already covered at the book's article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down some, but it probably needs more.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I finally got around to this, over 4 years later. Sad state of affairs.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Much of the information you removed was not in The Jewel of Medina article. I have taken the liberty of adding some of this information to the book's article to compensate.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

Not all of it belongs at Jewel of Medina, either. Are you able to verify all those sources, or did you just copy and paste? Remember this stuff involves living people.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources (and certainly for the most sensitive topics) appear to be from reliable sources. If you have specific concerns, I am willing to discuss them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

I responded at Talk:The Jewel of Medina.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We will continue our discuss there.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC))