Talk:Gabrielle Diana

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it does not meet any of the necessary criteria --DawidGiertuga (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Name

Does anyone know why this article is under 'Gabrielle Diana' and not 'Gabrielle Gladu' per WP:COMMONNAME? I don't see her referred to as 'Gabrielle Diana' in media, but rather 'Gabrielle Diana Gladu', such as here in Gay Star News. --Kbabej (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I see her referred to as 'Gabrielle Diana Gladu' in a 2015 The Advocate article and a 2015 People magazine article, but as 'Gabrielle Diana' in a 2016 Cosmopolitan article, a 2016 Independent article, a 2016 Buzzfeed News article, and a 2016 AOL article. This article was created on September 10, 2016, so that may help explain the title, because the coverage around that time seems to have been tending towards 'Gabrielle Diana', i.e. per WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" Beccaynr (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you! —Kbabej (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

tone

I markd the article for an excessive promotional tone. The first step infixing it is to reduce the number and length of quotations. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @DGG:, the template you added seems a bit broader than that, but I have made edits to the article to address the concern about tone, including the quotations. Please also note that per MOS:BLPCHRONO, there appears to be good reason to begin with Gladu's notable advocacy, and to emphasize it first as context before the details of her personal life. The template you added also includes concerns about properly sourced content, but please note that this was extensively discussed in the AfD discussion that closed as "keep" on February 13, 2021, so I encourage you to review that discussion if this is a concern. The template also suggests the article may be based on WP:ROUTINE or WP:NOTNEWS coverage, but the information presented in the article does not appear to fit these criteria; the template further suggests the article may be based on WP:SENSATIONAL, but none of the sources are tabloids, nor appear to be scandal mongering or gossip. I did rearrange the placement of some sources so the coverage by The New York Times is more prominent, so hopefully that helps address this if it is an issue, and I also similarly clarified information from The Advocate. I think the revisions appear to adequately address the concern over an excessive promotional tone; due to the revisions and the breadth of the template that seems to go beyond this concern without explanation, I am removing the template, but please feel free to raise any concerns that you may continue to have. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

the templates are standard; as you observe, they do not really take account of the specific circumstances. Normally, people checking articles use them as they are, in order for there to be some consistency, and in order to deal with the great number of articles. and when there's some special comment to be made, make it on the article talk page just as I did here. The template's purpose is to attract attention for revision, not to make judgements. Please don't read it as an insult

I will need some time to review your changes, but one thing I immediately restored for I think it clear: The biography section always precedes the section on the person's work or advocacy. This is absolutely standard practice. It's not a matter of relative importance, but of how bio articles are written in WP. And that's how I understand the guideline--I do not see the basis for interpreting this as you did. And, especially, in this particular case, her advocacy can be better understood if one knows the facts of her life. I am not trying to cut down the article but make it clearer and stronger.

There are still excessive quotes. The maximum number of quotes form the subject is ordinarily one. Quotes from news sources are only necessary to establish the exact wording of disputed material. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a guideline on quotes beyond MOS:QUOTE, which links to the essay WP:QUOTE, e.g. "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified, there is no need for an arbitrary limit but quotations should not dominate the article." If there are additional policies or guidelines that are relevant, please post them here. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC) I also found WP:RS/QUOTE, "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article." Beccaynr (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ritchie333: I'm pinging you because of your participation in the AfD discussion and your emphasis on taking care with this BLP; I recently had reverted User:DGG's changes (diff), including an attempt to move the Biography section to the beginning of the article; in support of my reversion, I cited MOS:BLPCHRONO, which states, "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise," and asked for a discussion, but User:DGG changed the order of the sections back (diff) with an edit summary "The biography section always precedes the section on the person's work or advocacy," and has left additional comments above. I think there are very good reasons for having her Advocacy listed first, and not just because it overlaps with the chronology of her Personal life, but also because her Personal life contains sensitive, less notable information that seems inappropriate to highlight first per the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am not sure how to respond here, so your participation would be appreciated. I am also pinging @Kbabej: a major contributor to this article, for any input they may wish to provide. Beccaynr (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Beccaynr, In general, when I have worked with biographies, I have put things in the order of the reader's interest, or what should be their interest. To pick a random example off the top of my head, consider Paul Gascoigne, because a) it's a good article, b) it's a BLP of someone who is primarily known as a footballer, but his mental health and alcoholism is also well known to the public. That article starts with "early life" and explains how he started doing the things that led to his primary notability (in that case, football), discusses his career (prime source of notability, giving due weight to sources correctly), then has a final "Personal life" section dealing with relationships and the non-football aspects. In my view, that's about the right balance, so I would strive for that - "Early life" (leading up to notable), "Career" (main event, why they're notable) and "Personal life" (BLP compliant facts that aren't the main focus). Hope that's helpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Thank you - I realize now that in my previous comment, I had incorrectly referred to the moved section as 'Biography' due to User:DGG's recent change to the section title, when it previously had been 'Personal life.' In reviewing the Paul Gascoigne article, I see that his Personal life section is not in chronological order, even though it contains sourced information that is also referenced in the lead. In Gladu's article, it seems appropriate to present her advocacy first, and while the lead may be able to be updated in a sensitive manner, there does not appear to be any requirement to emphasize the less-reported and less-notable aspects of her Personal life; a consensus had existed previously on the order of the article and the naming of the sections, so I am inclined to restore it. In Gladu's article, we don't have a lot of information about her Early life, and it primarly relates to her transition, so it also seems helpful for readability to simply include it in her Personal life section. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm also pinging Dream Focus, who had posted this article to ARS, for any input they may wish to provide. Beccaynr (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I remain puzzled about how it is possible to understand her advocacy without understanding her personal life, and especially her own transition. The bio guideline is fairly clear that we go chronologically. Minor personal details not necessary to the account do usually go at the end, such as family and death and burial. But the account of her transition is not a minor detail, it's the basis of her work and therefore the basis of the article.

The custom of presenting the most important material first is what I was taught to do in writing journalism, where one of the reasons is that the articles was likely to be truncated, and another that the reader might well read only the beginning of each story. This is an encyclopedia where we have a summary section for those wanting only a single paragraph, and the article itself is intended to be fairly comprehensive, and theres not going to be someone with a scissors trying to fit it into available space. ,

I've worked on a few thousand bio articles here, and the sequence I tried to use here has been the invariable sequence. This particular article is not within my primary field of interest, and I am not likely to look at it further--I am not about to try personally to regularize every oddly structured article in Wikipedia. I noticed this only because my main interest is in dealing with coi, and insistence on the structure of an article by its creater has in my experience usually been associated with coi. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

To clarify my comments above - from my view, I followed the lead of a more experienced editor when working to revise and update the article rapidly during the AfD discussion, and also took very seriously the concern raised by User:Ritchie333 during the AfD discussion - to me, this formed a consensus about not emphasizing a child's suicide attempt, for which no source appears to exist to suggest is necessary to understanding her advocacy. I apologize for not making this more clear in my earlier comments. Per WP:BLP, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment," and from my editorial judgment, the encyclopedic content should not be recast in a way that it is not presented by the available reliable sources, especially for sensitive personal information.

My perspective is also generally influenced by the essay WP:WAW, i.e. "A woman's relationships are inevitably discussed prominently when essential to her notability, but try to focus on her own notable roles or accomplishments first," so from that view, discussing Gladu's notable roles and accomplishments before her relationship with her school and her family also seemed supported.

I hope this expands your experience to include circumstances when an editor seeks to advocate for what they understand to have been consensus and to be the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, while also implementing edits according to your expressed concerns and continuing to be willing discuss further edits. If you are implying that I may have a COI with regard to this article, I assure you that I do not. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I did mean to come back and strike my "Delete - BLP concerns" comment from the AfD after you had extensively improved the article, but then forgot to do so. However, I know you've taken my comments seriously and I'm still a bit terrified of getting something wrong or lop-sided in this article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)