Talk:Élizabeth Teissier

Wikipedia in the lead

I removed the mention of WP in the lead and was reverted, [1], so I´ll comment here. First, my gut feeling is that almost nobody needs to have WP mentioned in their lead unless they´re Jimbo or that other guy. Second, Adam Cuerden argued that "The lead should summarise all sections", but I don´t think that´s necessarily so, certainly not to the subsection level. If so, you should first shoehorn the "Cancer" section in there (which I don´t think is needed, " the accuracy of her astrological predictions" seems to cover it). Currently the article may be lending a little to much weight to critisizing her, the Biography section is tiny compared to the Cancer Controversy + Other Controversy section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that there'ðs enopugh news coverage to justify a section about it - and, as far as possible, every section should be summarised briefly in the lead, per WP:LEAD. As for the criticism, that's what predominates in reliable sources, so... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• We should not have any bias for inclusion of WP-related material, but neither against it. Each of the three refs of that section would justify a mention on its own, since those are major media sources.

It is possible that reliable sources have (compared to the average human) a strong bias against astrology (for obvious reasons). But WP is not supposed to reflect what the average human believes. The myth of the flat earth is a common misconception in the West, yet it is presented as completely wrong because that is what historians say. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• • As for the biography - I'm trying to find more reliable sources for it. She appears to be primarily notable for the scandals, however, and that's reflected here. I'd like to add a filmography, though, as that should be sourceable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Tigraan, I have no problem with the "Lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation" section in the article. It seems factual and succinct to me. Putting it in the lead though, seems to me as "bias for inclusion of WP-related material" slightly. I think for the lead, this particular controversy among the several need not be mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that it's a relatively significant case, however, and it went over a couple years with her constantly appealing, so it's probably at the least a notable part of her biography. Also, it's temporally distinct - the Sociology doctorate happened 15 years ago. Honestly, I'd say it's to some extent an important part of why she has an article: If she was only notable for the Doctorate of Sociology, the previous situation where it was discussed under Michel Maffesoli and she didn't have a distinct article might be appropriate, given the paucity of sources for her modelling/film career. As it stands, however, the second notable event pushes her away from WP:ONEEVENT coverage into a situation where she can have her own article, and, as such, I think we should include it in the lead. Every astrologer has failed predictions, so, while they're a legitimate part of the discussion of her, I don't think they add much notability. Offhand, I'd say her most notable aspects were her films, the scandal around the doctorate, and the lawsuit, probably with the doctorate scandal as the most important of the three. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fair enough; while I think it ought to be mentioned, the current version is maybe unduly long. See proposition below. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• In the interest of compromise, what about keeping the mention, but shortening it? I propose this, basically striking the unnecessary details. (Plus some minor changes to the rest as well.) If both of you agree, just revert my self-revert. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's always benefit in shortening: The unshortened version presents all the key information briefly and succinctly, e.g, why she sued, what the result was - just saying there was a lawsuit might be shorter, but it's also making it a lot worse for our readers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In other news, I've roughed in a filmography. Now I just need citations, which may be hard for some of the more insignificant roles. Might lose the TV episodes if citation proves too difficult for them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And done! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've compared the biography section against her website, and it's fairly comparable, if you ignore the astrology stuff. I suppose we could use her website to pull out cite 5 into text - it's a primary source, but given such things are somewhat self-citing, it should be acceptable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is much improved since yesterday, thanks to all (well, Adam mostly) who worked on it. I´ll drop my lead-grudge, it seems more reasonable now (it´s a pet-peeve of mine, though). Two thoughts:

• Sourced to NYT [2], is it ok to mention that she claims to have predicted "the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, the 1987 stock market crash and the fall of the Berlin Wall"?
• Would a bibliography section be ok? [3] Not sourced to Amazon, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about claiming successful predictions when the article basically is quoting her as the source of them being considered successful. Once we get into that, we're basically opening up the situation from the French Wikipedia article, where dozens of not-very-notable-except-to-her predictions are picked apart. Let's try to find some with widespread contemporary press coverage.

• As for bibliography, I think it's appropriate. We can use the French Wikipedia one as a list, though I think it needs some work, particularly, ISBNs: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lizabeth_Teissier#Publications

What does it mean when a book doesn´t have an ISBN? [4] [5]. This book was kinda tricky. No ISBN, published in 1970, 75 and 76 (updated editions, maybe), and perhaps a co-author. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, NYT aren´t quoting her as the source of them being considered successful, they´re saying that she put them on a list of accomplishments that she wrote herself. That makes it a little more ok-ish as a source, since it´s the NYT. It also gives an example of "this is the kind of astrology she does" (I think it´s western astrology but that´s my OR). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

True. I worry, though, about us ending up with endless debunking. Perhaps if we worked it into the section on the tests? I think the sources list some predictions she claims (there's also an analysis of her September 11 claims in the French article that seems to go directly against the sources, which actually are far more negative) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As for ISBN numbering: They started to be assigned in 1970, so it may just have never gotten one assigned, as I don't think they appeared everywhere at the same time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

For older books with no ISBN, I recommend you look it up on worldcat.org and find the OCLC number. These exist for all books that are tracked by librarians. In other words any book worthy of being used as a reference has an OCLC. Also the clickable link on an OCLC number takes you directly to a site that will show you the libraries nearest you that have that book, which I find super convenient as a reader. If you are using a citation template for the reference, you can then include it with oclc= in the template. If you are just marking up the reference directly, use the conveniently named OCLC template to make the number clickable. If you're a super completist, you can include both an ISBN and OCLC on a single book too. ETA: I went ahead and did this for the 1970 book. --Krelnik (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Krelnik! Like many such things, easy when you know how. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(e/c)I may be naive here, but I don´t see it as necessary that every claim (clearly stated as claim) by her we put in the article need a specific reality-check. I´d like to see a new first section under "Astrology" it can be titled "Predictions" (or something better).

• According to Teissier, her predictions have a success rate of 80% to 90% (lifted from the next section). She claims to have predicted the shooting of Ronald Reagan, the Black Monday in 1987 and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Something like that. Then the general debunking starts in the next section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that According to Teissier bit works, particularly as that's referenced in the text that's the source of that experiment to test her reliability. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I put it in the article, subject to the usual merciless editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography

There´s two publishers in this section I´d like to wikilink if possible, so is there someone who knows if

• we have an article for Edition⁰1 under some name, and if
• XO is the same as XO Group? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, if it´s allowed and somebody wants to add an english translation of her booktitles, that would increase my understanding somewhat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

We may as well use her translations of the titles. I don't know about the publishers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sokal hoax

I added a statement comparing Teissier's thesis with the Sokal hoax and StAnselm reverted with the rationale "not at all notable: a single line based on personal communication - simply not suitable for a BLP". I note that physicist Jean Bricmont also wrote about it here and here and gave a presentation titled "From the Sokal affair to the Teissier affair" at the 12th European Skeptics Congress in 2005 - relevant, IMO, as it shows the controversy continued. The comparison is also included in the discussion in the 2005 translation into French of a book by Sokal and in a chapter by Hoock in the book 2013 book "Knowledge and the World: Challenges Beyond the Science Wars". Discussed here in 2015. I know I did not cite any of this and accept StAnselm's reversion based solely on the source provided, but invite comment on re-adding and expanding it based on the above sources. EdChem (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight on "Scientific analysis of the thesis"

The recent additions mean that the "Scientific analysis of the thesis" subsection is far too long and detailed for this article. Such an analysis of a thesis must be almost unprecedented on Wikipedia. I also have a problem with the great swathes of bold text: it says "emphasis in the original", but it's not (or not necessarily) - all that is cited is an English translation. StAnselm (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is the original in French with plenty of emphases included. As for the undue tag, please be specific as to what you see as unnecessary, or what could be added to add for balance. This thesis and doctorate led to a controversy that received huge coverage, and is still being discussed with the Sokal hoax in 2015. I added quotations from the thesis to allow readers to judge for themselves why it was criticised. I am happy to discuss and for others to edit - no one owns any article after all - but slapping an undue tag is not very helpful as to what specifically you want changed. It is, however, a way to stop a DYK nomination to which you have been objecting for a long time. EdChem (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I could see spinning some of it out into an article on l'affair Teissier, but it's hardly inappropriate to include it. This was a huge, huge scandal, and extensively covered in the French press, to an extent and detail that her other work hasn't received. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam, if we spun the thesis section out to a separate article, there is more than enough for a separate DYK nomination. This could then be trimmed back to satisfy StAnselm, while the separate article will be a place for the Sokal Hoax material too. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the article is grotesquely distorted by the attention given to the thesis. I was thinking that such a tag was required and Anselm has just beaten me to it. The subject is a 78 year old woman who has had a rich life and extensive career as a model, actress, tv presenter, astrologer and author. It is very skimpy on most aspect of her life and most of the text is devoted to this matter of the thesis, which comes across as a rant. More generally, spot-checks made during the DYK review indicate that the quality of the sourcing is poor and so the article requires much more attention. Andrew D. (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • She was a model - but there's almost no coverage of her modelling career except on her site.
  • She was in film - but in small roles, many uncredited. I was the one who found citations for her being in movies. She was in such tiny roles that I had to jump around movie sites because none of them covered such small roles consistently. If I could have used one site, I would have, but the roles were so small that I had to search hard to find proof she was in the named movies.
  • She wrote books on astrology - they were probably read, but not reviewed or commented on.
  • She was on TV, but in small astrology snippets.
  • She is an astrologer. She hasn't gotten much in-depth coverage on this until
  • She caused a huge scandal by getting a doctorate with a defense of astrology.
  • We go by weweight of coverage. L'affaire Teissier is by far the most notable thing she was involved in. It's not undue weight to cover the thing with by far the predominance of coverage as the main subject. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the tag - as the title of this thread indicates, it's not about the "Sociology thesis" but the "Scientific analysis of the thesis" section. Presumably all criticism of theses come after analysis - why are we giving so much detail to this particular one? I think a maximum of two or three sentences would be sufficient. StAnselm (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have started an article on the Teissier affair, when this red-link goes blue it will be live (hopefully a couple of days), and I'll see about cutting back enough to get rid of the undue tag. However, Adam is correct that no one has suggested any additions (with references) that are missing and Teissier is mostly discussed because of her PhD, and her predictions. EdChem (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have added more clean-up tags to indicate the article's numerous problems, as discussed above. Andrew D. (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You haven't justified them,. AT ALL. BLP sourcing? Sourcing issues? POV? You haven't challenged a single source, you haven't arguesd for POV; you've simply claimed that one section unbalanced, without providing the slightest bit of sourcing exists for the material you speculate is out there.

Justify it first'. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Weighing in only on the use of bold text in the article: per MOS:NOBOLD, bold text should not be used for emphasis. If the original text was emphasized, then use the <em> tag to indicate the text that was emphasized. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: we are not talking about emphases added but ones that were in the original source. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Typographic conformity, with respect to quotations: "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure the meaning of the text; this practice is universal among publishers. ... Generally preserve bold and italics (see § Italics, above), but most other styling should be altered." However, StAnselm's point about the appearance of the bolded text is reasonable, I wondered about it when I included it. When I make some removals after the new article is done, I was thinking of removing the emphases, stating emphases removed, and including them in the quotations in the references, which I suggest as a sensible compromise. Thoughts, anyone? EdChem (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Update

Background: I came to this article from the DYK nomination about 10 days ago. I had also commented back in July, and moved on. I have a PhD in science so I have an immediate view on the idea of a awarding a PhD being for a thesis arguing for astrology as a science. I thought and still think that some of Adam C's proposed hooks are not unduly negative, so my intent was to help the DYK nomination towards promotion to the queues. Even when I added material to the article, I was thinking in this frame without stepping back and neutrally assessing the effect on the article overall. Even a cursory look at the material suggested to me that a broader context was missing, but I did not immediately find sources to support that, and my opinion alone would have been OR. As I kept looking, I realised that my impression was correct and there was more to the situation that should be included. The balance of the article (PhD-related vs. the rest of Teissier's life) was obviously been compromised, which is why I suggested above writing a stand alone article on just the Teissier affair.

Apology: As I read more and searched more, I found materials a wealth of material related to the affair, including reliably-sourced materials independent of Teissier defending her, and this is notably missing in the version as it stands now. An UNDUE template was placed on the article and my first impression was that it would stall the DYK nomination. Whilst it did have that effect, I feel compelled to put on record that it is justified as the article stands. I want to apologise for not considering the article as a whole soon enough to recognise that the material I added, whilst accurate, was incomplete and had the effect of unbalancing the article both in text devoted to the PhD issue and in the tone of that material, with the defenders of Teissier under-represented. I believe in producing neutral, balanced, and fair articles and am moving now to correct my mistake.

What now?: I will add a hat note to Teissier affair, which I intend to move to main space inside the next 24 hours (and so this red link will go blue). It is not finished, but it is well on the way, and I will nominate it for DYK separately. I will also make cuts and changes to this article. When I am done, I will ping everyone who has commented here. Hopefully, we can get to a consensus that the UNDUE issue has been addressed. Thanks for your patience. EdChem (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden, StAnselm, Andrew Davidson, and BlueMoonset: Opinions requested on the new version. More balanced? Still too long - and what to cut? Shorten quotations within the references? Any and all thoughts welcome. EdChem (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The balance is even worse now, as far as the biography goes, but presumably if you create a new article the vast majority of the text will be moved there. So personally, I'm just waiting to see what happens after that. But thanks for the apology. StAnselm (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I will say one more thing now, actually - I still don't understand why there is a "Scientific analysis of the thesis" section. Why isn't it part of "Response from the academic community"? And it's still not very neutral (e.g. "took the initiative to critically analyse the thesis" rather than "critically analysed the thesis" - this is, in fact, cited, but only to the AFIS itself). StAnselm (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: the reason was that there was an immediate reaction, based on the defense, but the thesis itself was only made available after the defense. The scientific analysis came some while later after the 900+ pages of thesis were examined in detail. However, I have merged them at your suggestion. The new article is in my user space. I am having trouble knowing what is not needed for this article. My usual approach would be to strengthen the rest of the article, but I don't know what to add, or what sources I could use. Without the PhD issue, she's an astrologer about whom there's not that much to say, who also did some modelling and minor acting. Staying policy-compliant is important, obviously, especially as she's sued the WMF (so I don't want us to be accusable of being biased). What would you suggest is not needed? @Gatoclass: I noticed your comment at the DYK nomination, any thoughts on what to remove? EdChem (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

EdChem, I didn't read the text so I have no opinion on what to remove and what to leave. However, if an article dedicated to the thesis controversy is already being worked on, I would leave only a few lines about the controversy in the BLP, and move or work the rest into the dedicated article as appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I hate to disappoint you but having just read the intro to your new article, it doesn't read as a neutral presentation at all and I can't imagine approving it for DYK in its current state, nor can I imagine that the BLP folks are going to like it. I would keep it in your userspace for the time being and perhaps ask for some opinions at the BLP noticeboard before taking things further. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass I agree, the intro needs balancing, I haven't gone back to it yet - but thanks for the reminder. I've been trying to include both sides but that draft clearly is one-sided in the into. EdChem (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

We can't reduce the thing she's most notable for to a few lines though I agree we can substantially reduce it - a couple paragraphs or so, to give appropriate coverage, and enough reaction to put it in context. The intro to the draft article isn't that bad - WP:FRINGE applies, after all - but I do think it should probably at least mention the views of her supporters, and - while the view that the thesis is problematic is almost certainly the mainstream one, and should be presented as such - the opening sentences could use more nuance. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam, Gatoclass, StAnselm, please remove whatever you think is not needed from this article. As for my draft, it'll be open for editing when it goes to main space, but I still have some work to do on it.  :) EdChem (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden, StAnselm, Andrew Davidson, BlueMoonset, and Gatoclass: The section on her PhD work is now about 250 words shorter than it was when the UNDUE tag was added. Any thoughts on the tag and, if more should be cut, what? Also, do I trim (or even remove) most of the quotations from the reference list? I think it is balanced (in that views of Teissier and her supporters are represented, along with thw scientific criticism), but others may not agree. I've invited input from WP:BLP/N and will ask at the Biography WikiProject. Please advise. EdChem (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Given how much it's cut down - not excessively longer than the section was before it expanded, but with a lot more nuance and detail, I think any claim that it's still too long needs actively restated, with discussion of what material is in excess. I do think the ending of the section is poor - you shouldn't end on a non-mainstream view; Teissier's lawsuit should come before some mainstream point - and the Science Wars context might well be alright being left for the spun-out article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam, I'm happy to edit / change, but I don't follow what you mean. Do you mean Teissier's response at the end of the Response section, which is her opinion, or the end of the Science Wars section, which is a comment on the jury? I'm confused. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am waiting to see if the spin-off article eventuates. StAnselm (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Here is the draft as it stands presently. EdChem (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm certainly not going to trim down this article until the other one goes live. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, StAnselm, but would you please give us some idea of what you see in this article that can go? Do you favour Adam's suggestion of removing the Science wars context? I think it explains why the situation became so nasty on both sides, academics aren't usually using some of the language that appeared in this case, but I am ok with shortening if that is the consensus, I can do it by not explaining what the science wars were. EdChem (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, if there is a spin-off article, then most of the section can go. I would probably keep the first paragraph, have about a quarter of the next two paragraphs, and remove the fourth paragraph altogether. StAnselm (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have gone ahead and created the spin-off article with precisely what was in this article; and then pruned this article back. StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • So, is the Undue dealt with?I'm happy enough with it as it is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• @StAnselm: So, you have created a split article knowing I am writing one, which has far more detail, preventing mine with all the history being simply moved to main space? Thanks a bunch. Now, please remove the undue tag now you have cut the content to about 20% less than it was before I added anything. EdChem (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see what the problem is - you are certainly free to expand Teissier affair as you see fit. I went ahead and created the article because this discussion had stalled and was holding up the DYK nomination. StAnselm (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I can't cut-and-paste my article over yours as that loses the history of my draft (which includes a couple of edits of others). I can't move it over yours without +sysop permissions. I can request yours be deleted to make way, but I have no idea if that would be agreed without your consent. Plus, it could be argued that to qualify for DYK, my version would need to be a x5 expansion of yours. Basically, you've left me feeling that the considerable work I've done has been treated like shit. I don't know what your intent was, and maybe you see it differently – though we could have made cuts here days ago if you'd answered the questions asked multiple times. Anyway, this is a problem for another day, and I do agree that getting the DYK resolved is way overdue. EdChem (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you feel this way. I hadn't, of course, thought about page history issues - I figured that material from your draft could just be added to the new article in the usual way. As for DYK, we still have a few days to nominate the article. StAnselm (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• The version before I added anything was 527 words on the thesis, my most recent version is 492 and includes support for the DYK hook, the balance concern of Adam's, and a mention of the science wars context. I think this last issue is vital as not mentioning it provides no reason for the vehemence of the commentary on both sides. EdChem (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No, this is precisely the sort of thing that belongs in the article about the controversy, and should not be included in the article about the person. StAnselm (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realised you had already restored the material. I have put the tag back - we haven't quite resolved this issue yet. Personally, I think the version produced by Adam's edit is just about right. Also, I disagree with the new categories you added - they belong on the controversy article, not here. (Though she certainly needs to be in Category:Paris Descartes University alumni.) StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is shorter than before I ever added anything, where there was no tag, so it can't be undue in terms of length. Adam removed much of the ET-supporter side, so was arguably unbalanced. I don't care if you change the categories, they seemed relevant to me. As for the science wars, it informs the surrounding circumstances, it was mentioned in coverage at the time, and the language on each side is very aggressive an non-academic, and that calls for some explanation. Please explain what about this you disagree with, in terms of relevance to the article. As for putting the tag back, if you are trying to appear disruptive, you are succeeding. EdChem (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There is now an article about the controversy, so that changes what is "due weight" in this article, of course. The material about the science wars relates to the controversy, but not really to Teissier as a person. Hence, including it in the article is undue weight. I initially did not remove the tag, because I wasn't sure if we had a stable version of the article, and then I restored it when it became apparent we did not. StAnselm (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm, Teissier claimed her critics were undermining academic freedom, she claimed astrology is a legitimate science, her work was described as nonsense which passed only because she took advantage of the intellectual weakness of the jury – and you think none of this has anything to with her? That is ridiculous. You have now removed the education controversies category – presumably because none of this constitutes a controversy in which she was involved. You have established that you lack the competence to edit this article, but you are exploiting the power of the tag to undermine the DYK nomination, an example of disruptive editing. So, go ahead – gut the content, remove the tag, feel self-satisfied in your "achievement" of undermining description of the single most covered event in Teissier's life. EdChem (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. I think you forget that it was Adam who removed the bit about academic freedom (though I certainly like his version of the article.) Anyway, I'm sorry you feel bad about me creating the other article, but there's no call to throw a hissy fit. StAnselm (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is you're trying to fit everything into this article, thus are accidentally getting a terrible balance - if we're spinning off, trying to fit too much in here means that you cover all the back and forth - but since you cut so much of the mainstream side to avoid repetition of point, it gives the appearance her supporters are equally numerous, and, worse, by giving her or her supporters the final say on each point, it gives the impression that their views are enough to rebut the criticisms completely. There's also minor points that we could either explain fully or not at all - for example, her critics did agree that sociology could study astrology - but went on to explain that her thesis was not a sociological study of astrology, but a promotion of astrology. The paragraph you reverted to instead placed the critics agreeing with that as the final word on the subject, and left out the nuances and the point of the agreement. It's hard for the person who wrote the long version to accurately do cuts; you know what the context and conclusions are, so your mind will fill it in.

Also, the Science Wars context is not particularly important in the Teissier article, that's best left for the main article on the affair. It's a context, and explains how she could get away with it, but it's not necessary to understand the immediate facts; it's something for the full article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Photo

What's up with the photo? Is it just a bad photoshop job? Also the date is wrong. It says May 2009 but the image dates back to at least 2005, as you can see here [6]. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: the image info says it is from Teissier herself, who provides the May 2009 date (which I include in image captions for that reason). There is an associated OTRS ticket, so while I have doubts about the date given your link, there is little anyone who can't see the OTRS ticket can do. EdChem (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: Maybe ask at the Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard? EdChem (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Élizabeth Teissier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 08:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I am concerned that there is so little coverage of Teissier's youth/early life.

   The above still stands, that she is born and then is married all within a single sentence. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   There isn't anything available about her early life/childhood/time at university/etc? Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Ref #38 (to "Le Monde") is a dead link.

   A link to a non-dead link from a notable organization is also provided, but it seemed like the main link should be to where it was. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   Are there any references about the Wikimedia lawsuit in English?

   There's the Wikipedia blog, but that doesn't seem reliable. I don't think she's well-known enough in English-speaking countries to have been worth a report. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The lead image though "dated" relies on the subject's asserted date. Are there any other images that could possibly work?

   I don't think it'd be possible readily, especially since we can't really go fair use when we have a free-licensed one, unless the image was shown to not be free-licensed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   This is somewhat funny - I found the image used as a cover illustration on Tessier's 2006 Astrology book, so her (assuming the Commons editor "Elizabethteissier" is the subject) date in the File is in error. Shearonink (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   Since the image's date is identified by the subject that will have to stand. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I need to do a few more read-throughs to check some things out. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   Still "On Hold" pending the *education claims & the *reference-styles. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   I am sorry but I am not passing this article to a WP:GA status at this time, in my opinion it does not fulfill 1A. 03:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

While not strictly a part of the GA requirements, the references are in two widely different styles. I would like to see them be consistent. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned that the only source for one of the subject's university degrees is a statement from her in an interview, (Ref #2), also that she somehow received a Master before a Bachelor's, and that there is no record of where she received these asserted degrees from. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I mislaid this Review for a while - apologies for the delay. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The asserted university-level education degrees should be sourced from something other than the subject's personal statements. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry - I'm kinmda finding it hard to get time for Wikipedia myself just now. I had been begging for a review to start the last quarter of last year because I knew this was going to happen. I really hate GAN sometimes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Just checking in. My major concerns at this point are still 1) the asserted/claimed collegiate degrees and 2)the inconsistent reference-styles. If those can be dealt with at some point I will then be able to finish up my Review. Shearonink (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Further thoughts

In my opinion, because of various issues with

• claims made by the subject about their levels of education
• early life section that is truncated in its development - born & married all in one sentence

this article does not fulfill the GA Criteria at this time, specifically 1A. That references within a WP:GA agree in their form is not strictly part of the WP:GA Criteria but that aspect personally gives me pause in that it makes verification more difficult for our readers. I will be leaving this Review open for a day or two more and in any case will be posting my final Review later this week. If I do think a Fail is necessary I want it understood that I would be glad to review it again after Adam Cuerden or other interested editors can adjust and correct its various issues. I have enjoyed learning about this woman in the course of this Review. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)