Analyst737
|
REF regarding the page titled "Ann Louise Gittleman," The prior biography for this living person was written as complete slander, citing this doctor as a "quack" and making numerous derogatory remarks that violate the rules of the living person biography standards. Unfortunately, this attack page had apparently been posted years ago.
Please see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Attack_pages "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see #Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking."
I do research for a living and had recently completed work for an unrelated project when I stumbled upon this biography and did my own research project to determine that this was, in fact, a slander piece. So, I corrected the erroneous and nonconstructive statements using my own research.
Discretionary sanctions
edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
RESPONSE:
This is a biography, not a "subject" page. The topic is not "pseudoscience," but is instead the information ABOUT a person. The wording of the current post is slanderous and derogatory, in violation of the rules.
For example, "proponent of alternative medicine, especially fad diets. She promotes herself as a nutritionist, while having a degree from a diploma mill." Written by user KolbertBot. Gittleman's is a PhD and has a degree from Columbia University (hardly a diploma mill). See http://annlouise.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bio.pdf Even if my full edit isn't reinstated, PLEASE consider allowing for removal of the slanderous statements, as they are in violation of the rules for a biography - They are biased and negative.
Current Bio for Ann Louise Gittleman in Violation of the Guidelines
editThis is a biography, not a "subject" page. The topic is not "pseudoscience," but is instead the information ABOUT a living person. The wording of the current post is slanderous and derogatory, in violation of the rules. I tried to edit it, but it was reverted because I added a significant about of text. I am BRAND NEW to this, and ONLY joined Wiki when I came across this bio in some unrelated research about a different topic. I was so shocked by the fact that it said what it said that I decided to fix it.
For example, "proponent of alternative medicine, especially fad diets. She promotes herself as a nutritionist, while having a degree from a diploma mill." Written by user KolbertBot. Gittleman's is a PhD and has a degree from Columbia University (hardly a diploma mill). See http://annlouise.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bio.pdf Even if my full edit isn't reinstated, @admin PLEASE consider allowing for removal of the slanderous statements, as they are in violation of the rules for a biography - They are biased and negative. Based on my research, the woman has appeared on numerous television shows and her work has been cited in number of media outlets. She's a best selling author and the list goes on.
I am okay with leaving the stuff that says "so and so called her such and such," but to DEFINE this LIVING, BREATHING person by he opinion of an anonymous writer, with no backing beyond a few Wordpress blogs to support the claim, is a discredit to Wikipedia.Analyst737 (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[1]
Help me!
edit | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... the Ann Louise Gittleman debacle. I am trying to resolve some slander I stumbled upon for a biography during unrelated research. I made an attempt, as a totally green user, to correct it and make it less ghastly, but someone came along and reverted it. I tried to change it back and it was locked. I wasn't attempting to "war" with anyone, I just want to see this matter resolved. Apparently MONTHS have passed with others trying to do the same thing. It seems someone using Wiki regularly has specific bias against this person. I have posted on countless boards and threads this morning and I really don't have enough invested in this to become a 'regular.' I simply want to right a wrong and move on. How has nobody done anything about it? It would be easier to delete the page completely and start again than it is to go back and forth with the mess. PLEASE DO SOMETHING. It seems many have tried but all have failed so far. Who in the ranks has personal issues with this woman? Can we just delete the page? Write a new one? Something? TODAY rather than 20 years from now?
In my business, we are not allowed to use Wiki as a reputable source. After all this, I can see why.
Analyst737 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- You apparently used the subject's own website as a source for her credentials and removed multiple highly reputable sources, including Health.com. Gone is the information about her PhD coming from an unaccredited college that closed in 2010 amid criticism of being a "diploma mill." Gone were all the reviews of her works that found issues such as shoddy science or advice that was considered outright unhealthy by the reviewers. Instead you added large amounts of unsourced content, highlighting her (largely self-sourced) "achievements" in boldface. That's no way to fix the article. There were some problems, but I don't see a single claim that wasn't supported by a reliable source, so "slander" is not among the problems. "Whitewashing", however, is a problem. If you have issues with particular parts of the article, or if you think it omits some significant aspects of Gittleman that have been covered by reliable sources, I'd advise you to raise those issues on the article's talk page and to propose changes backed up with reliable sources.
- Does your business allow you to use peoples' websites as reputable sources for their achievements when there's contradictory evidence? Huon (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Huon: Firstly, I have now bled away my Saturday to read ALL of the "reputable sources" on this list and, wow, the majority have nothing to do with the lady in the bio at all. They have to do with OTHER subjects cited in the piece -- there's NOTHING in the citations that speak to this lady or her work. They simply speak to the subject matter and since this is a bio, that doesn't count as good sourcing. The statements are written in a defaming tone without providing proof. There is no public info citing this lady a quack beyond opinion, and if we use opinion as a reputable source, then what is the point of any of this? I have no intention of whitewashing anything, but the current bio makes claims that can't possibly be substantiated without citing the subject's own material. As a researcher, I chose to cite the ONLY AVAILABLE SOURCES, regardless of locale, as there simply isn't enough info to substantiate the other claims. For example, How does the writer of the current post KNOW where Gittleman got her education if not pulling from her own material? There's a flat remark about it, but no citation. How did the writer know where she graduated from if he/she didn't get it from her own material? So, Just so I'm clear -- I'm wrong for citing where the educational info came from, because it came from the subject's own material, but the current writer is okay to make statements that have no citation at all? There's NOTHING under education and career citing her degree from Columbia, her awards, her speaking, nothing like that. And the only "citation" doesn't say anything about Gittleman. Also, the statements like "She has been criticized...' are COMPLETELY untrue. No one has criticized HER, they may have criticized her ideas - but there are thousands of people who agree with her. The tonality of this piece is completely biased and not journalistic. If my corrections went too far the other way, fine. But THIS is out of control and the history on this bio notes years of other people who have tried to fix the issues too. It's clear to me that there's some bias somewhere in the ranks. As a total outsider here, I find this exhausting. The bottom line, if this lady's bio is going to stay on Wiki, it needs to be rewritten and the citations will HAVE to come from her stuff because there simply aren't enough sources to provide info about her from other places. Otherwise, delete it altogether - because she's not mainstream enough to substantiate all the defaming content that's on there now. Analyst737 (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
An extended welcome
editWelcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.
Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate this, but I have no desire in becoming a regular here. I stumbled upon something I found to be wrong and wanted to right it. Since then, I have learned that the well of muck is deep, years have passed with people trying to neutralize this bio and there's no progress. Also, the "sources" cited to prove ANY of the claims about this person (good and bad) are limited. Though I tried to balance it out originally, further time spent leaves me with the opinion that this lady doesn't even belong on Wikipedia. Someone who dislikes her apparently wrote a piece and now, here we are. There's no citation that speaks specifically TO this woman... or even her work really. It's all external and pretty much all of them fail to call the woman by name or pinpoint her work. This woman is not mainstream enough to validate the info about her either good OR bad. Analyst737 (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- You are correct in that there are very few independent sources about her, many more about her work and claims. I hope the article isn't as biased as you fear, and that your efforts might get experienced editors to spend more time working on the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate this, but I have no desire in becoming a regular here. I stumbled upon something I found to be wrong and wanted to right it. Since then, I have learned that the well of muck is deep, years have passed with people trying to neutralize this bio and there's no progress. Also, the "sources" cited to prove ANY of the claims about this person (good and bad) are limited. Though I tried to balance it out originally, further time spent leaves me with the opinion that this lady doesn't even belong on Wikipedia. Someone who dislikes her apparently wrote a piece and now, here we are. There's no citation that speaks specifically TO this woman... or even her work really. It's all external and pretty much all of them fail to call the woman by name or pinpoint her work. This woman is not mainstream enough to validate the info about her either good OR bad. Analyst737 (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
edit
Hello Analyst737, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Ann Louise Gittleman have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
NEW SOURCE for this person - A biography and interview
editI literally hadn't thought about this lady, or even Wiki for that matter, since my first experience a month ago. However, an article (http://hotmessanonymous.com/noteworthy-nutritionist-and-author-ann-louise-gittleman/) about this lady came up on my Facebook news feed and I remembered her name, so, I made some additions based on the info in the source. I DID NOT remove anything, but did some rewording to make sure the new additions made sense.
--- Response to rapid deletion of credible source:
Hot Mess Press is an online news magazine (see https://www.facebook.com/pg/TheHotMessPress/about/?ref=page_internal) NOT a personal blog. The author of the article is a medical professional (see bio). NOTHING removed from prior edit(s). If the suggested source is considered uncredible, the Gizmodo source written by non-expert, layman freelance writer Kate Knibbs (who also wrote for The Onion, by the way) is also uncredible. (See Knibbs' LinkedIn) (See comments on Gizmodo piece). That said, the Gizmodo piece uses this article (https://goop.com/wellness/food-planet/ann-louise-gittleman-on-protecting-yourself-from-wifi-cellphone-toxicity/?irgwc=1&utm_campaign=10079_OnlineTrackingLink&utm_source=impactradius&utm_medium=affiliate) as ITS source, and this article is in no way bias or discreditive of Gittlamn. Also, while on the subject of sourcing, there it no citation on the current Clayton College statement. Where is the source for that? This source addresses it.