Talk:Kathy Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Stop using Marketing Terminology, Take Two[edit]

BornToDeal - this is not the first (or second) time this point has been made in hopes your edits would improve to align with Wikipedia standards. I am going to revert back my edits and I'm going to take the time to explain each one. After this, the second essay in response to your reverts, it will be difficult to assume good faith.

Edit 1) ORIGINAL "...which prompted Forbes to name her the "prototype for model-turned-mogul..." No. The actual quote of the Forbes cite describes Ireland as "One of the most successful model-turned-entrepreneurs." That is ALL the Wikipedia article can therefore say. The original wording misrepresents the cite and that is unacceptable.
EDIT 2) ORIGINAL "By 2005, kathy ireland Worldwide products were sold at over 50,000 locations in 15 countries..." Two problems: a) it is a direct quote so if used, should be in quote marks. But more importantly, as explained already, Ireland is NOT her company. That this article lists minutia about her company and glosses over her modeling career is unacceptable - Ireland's legacy, according to the first 25 hits of Respected Sources in Google, is primarily as a model. Even her entrepreneurial work is discussed in the cites as that of "model-turned-mogul." kiWW should have its OWN article, if notable, or if folded into this article - not coatracked. By combining the information at hand, I attempted to signify the company's continued growth and success under Ireland's leadership without giving undue weight.
Edit 3) ORIGINAL "License Global Magazine named..." This is cut because the only source for it is Ireland's OWN website. WP:SPS - NEVER USE SELF-PUBLISHED MATERIAL in a BLP. 'Nuf said.
Edit 4) If the lowercase on the name is a stylistic thing for the company, then put it in quotes or set up and use an acronym for clarity. Otherwise, proper names are capitalized.

EBY (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

EBY, I have respect for all people, but please know the unilateral removal of relevant encyclopedia content on this page is vandalism. As you know from the community, we all contribute and it is not okay to simply wipe away hours of work from another person. This won't stand in any situation here. It's a community with many of us giving our time freely.

Please know the content will be reviewed and restored in kind. I will review your notes but I will not accept having you simply erase hard work and relevant news from the wiki.

I am always eager to learn and educate myself on the way to best help this community. As yours is one of many opinions, I will review this with other authors and take appropriate action.

Borntodeal (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism but your idea to appeal to a 3rd Opinion is a good one. Doing so now. EBY (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Update - I put our disagreement on the WP:3O noticeboard and will abide by whatever recommendation we get. EBY (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair and reasonable. Here is my response to your last:

As stated EBY, editing is not vandalism, but removal of all content without a reasonable attempt to edit it the way you feel would be suitable would be vandalism.

Follow the normal protocol: When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help.

Avoiding conflict: A variety of methods exist for helping to positively resolve disputes, before using formal processes or third-party intervention. Disputes or grievances should always be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith, the editor or editors concerned and explaining what you find objectionable and why you think so. This can be done on the talk page of the article or on the user page.

Clearly I am not satisfied with your removal of the content as it's unilateral and does not involve a good faith effort to balance or tweak to satisfy your editing dispute. I am therefore seeking to discuss it with you. Simple removal is vandalism. Editing is celebrating someone's work and helping to improve it. You did not do the latter. More to follow after I review this further.

Borntodeal (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ininvolved editor not giving a 3O opinion on the topic itself: I would suggest we dont throw around terms like vandal or claims of bad faith, when its clear both parties are intent on improving the encyclopedia one way or another. Rather then discuss how they could have approached you better, or that they should have learnt by now. Debate the points at hand in regards to Wikipedia policy :) -- Nbound (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────*BTD, maybe be specific about which changes you have an issue with, and why? I didn't blank, and I listed the reasons for my edits. If you list your reasons against them, a 3O will have a much simpler time of it. EBY (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@Nbound, I assure you I thought long and hard before using the phrase. Simple deletion of content is vandalism and not in the spirit of this wiki platform. Wikipedia has clearly stated When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. and user EBY3221 has simply deleted my writings. Very poor decision considering I provided clear citations and although I may not be as avid of a contributor, I do contribute to Wikipedia with heart and a desire to be of service to the community. I am very opposed to the draconian approach of simply removing what you don't like, it's not what has been directed by the Wikipedia founders. I have already cleared up what was objectionable and I'd like EBY3221 to stop deleting my content, add relevant and constructive edits and be in service to all of us as contributors by not alienating those who give their time freely and with a desire to improve the Wikipedia pages here. Let's get to good and restore the work with constructive edits not rampant and unilateral removal. Borntodeal (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking: Blanking that could be legitimate includes blanking all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and unbiased information on the living; blanking may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should be used as initial warnings for content removals without more descriptive edit summaries. BLP is a different case than most articles as they can directly affect someone. If there is specific concerns about deleted content, address them, else the only outcome will be an edit war. This will be my last comment. Hope you guys can come to an agreement on wording and content. I would suggest that the blanks that were not removed for inaccuracy are returned for now, in good faith for further discussion. :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion (3O) project. Your request there for a third opinion has been removed because this dispute does not meet the requirements of that noticeboard that, first, the dispute be a content, not a conduct, dispute, and second, that the content dispute have been discussed to a standstill at the article talk page. All content dispute resolution (DR) forums at Wikipedia have similar requirements. While EBY3221 raised content issues in his first posting in this section, Borntodeal responded with a conduct assertion (vandalism) and all that has been discussed since that time is conduct. If you choose to go on to discuss the content issues and that new discussion then comes to a standstill, then you may consider making a new request at 3O or at some other DR forum. If you need help with conduct matters, consider WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: I don't mean to be insulting by what I'm about to say, but I have to wonder if the reason that there has been no content discussion is that EBY3221 has raised content matters with a reasonably sophisticated appeal to policy whereas Borntodeal is a newcomer with less than 220 edits and simply does not know how policy works here at Wikipedia well enough so that he can discuss the content. If I have guessed correctly, let me recommend that Borntodeal seek help at either Editor Assistance or, much better, the Teahouse and emphasize in doing so that he is seeking help evaluating and understanding EBY's objections due to his lack of experience, rather than help in challenging them. That emphasis is needed to avoid, especially at Editor Assistance, a quick response there that the matter is a conduct dispute that should be taken to DR. Another route for Borntodeal would be to allow this to sit for awhile and ask to for a mentor. If my analysis is wrong, however, just ignore all this and forgive the intrusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

TransporterMan, thank you for your input and advice, which are appreciated. It is wonderful that you took this tone rather than the tone from EBY's, which was to essentially attack me as a user and wipe off the content. In the comments above EBY's elludes to corrections which EBY's does not seek to make under the site's mandate to [f]ollow the normal protocol: When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. What I would expect now is that EBY's would restore the content which I attempted to do and EBY's wiped it off again. Then after restoring the content, taking time to make edits that EBY felt would be appropriate. I am now looking for EBY to do this and restore what was removed, make some constructive edits which were outlined in the talk page but EBY never deployed on the Wiki. It is odd to me why. Much time was spent talking about it, and not much on editing it. It is reassuring to note that EBY's request and post on the Third Opinion (3O) project was removed because it did not meet that board's requirements. Glad to learn and understand it. Having a passion about a subject should not be attacked on here and that is how I view the removals without constructive edits. I'd like to see other editor's remarks and perhaps they can review the removals and give their input on how to incorporate this important and relevant materials back onto the Wikipedia page. Borntodeal (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Awards and...[edit]

A section dedicated to awards, especially fairly obscure ones, is not appropriate in a good biography article. Maybe look at Nelson Mandela's article? He's won over 250 awards, including a Nobel Peace Prize, but there is no section just for awards.

A good article is balanced and includes criticism not just praise (like in the incredibly fluffy part about Ireland's friendship with Elizabeth Taylor - the quote about Ireland being gracious is included but the criticism that PROMPTED Taylor to speak out was excised. This is a very unbalanced use of the source.) Information should be folded in based on the weight given by the neutral, reliable sources themselves and NOT the editor. Perhaps think about a timeline approach to the article and organizing the information that way, with more information about Ireland's primary public legacy - her modelling. Cut some of the extraneous puffery and the minute details. This article has become a coat-rack, which is a disservice to the subject. EBY (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Another explanation[edit]

This policy statement answers the request left on my user page: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (Emphasis mine)-->Biographies, How they are written.

Previous editor reminded me to assume good faith which is challenging when multiple warnings about inappropriate editing have been issued over the years. But I've decided to take another pass with a MORE in-depth discussion, point by point, of every recent deletion/edit I made, in case this is truly a case of an inexperienced enthusiastic editor who needs clarity.

Edit/Deletion 1) "In Q1 of 2011, Ireland expanded her kathy ireland HOME..." Issue 1) - this is taken from a press release, not an actual article. It is along the lines of being self-published information, not an acceptable source. Issue 2) It uses self-promotional tone and terminology that isn't appropriate. Issue 3) It is about Ireland's COMPANY and not IRELAND herself. If this move, as a CEO, had caused some kind of major response in the world, with articles about it, then it would be fitting (see Steve Jobs + iPhone) but otherwise, no.

Edit/Deletion 2) "The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Los Angeles-based ..." Issue 1) - again, this is original research taken from the website of the venue. What is needed is, for example, the New York Times running an article about Ireland's pro-Israel work and giving this movie premiere as an example. That would establish the relevant notability. Issue 2) By devoting an entire paragraph to this event, for which Ireland was basically only one of 3 co-chairs for a movie showing, it gives this event weight - but the emphasis is coming from the EDITORS (us) and NOT a reliable source (like the New York Times.) It is not for Wikipedia to decide Ireland's impact and legacy, in regards to Israel or anything else. It is for reliable media sources and published biographers.

Edit/Deletion 3) "On April 23, 2013, Ireland announced a partnership with kathy ireland HOME and Nourison, a floor covering company..." Issue 1) This is, again, about Ireland's company and not Ireland herself. Issue 2) It is, again, promotional in tone. If you scroll down at WP:BLP, you'll see mention of "It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone..." It is best to err on the side of deleting press-release type additions.

Edit/Deletion 4) "In 2003, Ireland announced a kathy ireland HOME partnership..." Issues) Same as above. This is a press release-type insert that concerns Ireland's company, not herself.

Edit/Deletion 5) "Ireland was called the world's richest model over..." Issue 1) This is a HUGE claim to make and should be backed up with multiple sources and certainly a paragraph or two with attributions. If it wasn't a throwaway line, then tucking this away or giving LESS space than 3rd chairperson of a movie night is undue weight (or lack therof.) Issue 2) This specific quote is DIRECT quote, unattributed, from a 3/20/13 blog called "Arts-Stew"( that was written about the Vogue article. Issue 3) It is a contested quote. Vogue said it, but multiple sources (some, like the Daily Mail, maybe with less reliability) have argued it. To include the quote and ignore its critics is contentious and, like the Needs-to-be-removed-altogether or expanded-to-include-criticism Elizabeth Taylor quote, it is cherry picking.

Edit/Deletion 6 & 7) "Nebraska Furniture Mart became the first kathy ireland HOME ..." Issue 1) Again, if the lower-case kathy ireland is a trademark or something, set it up. Otherwise, the manual of style spells out UC first letter of proper names. Issue 2) This is very promotional in tone, and is again about the company and not Ireland herself. (Also, including a story about Ireland bumping into Irv Blumkin, head of Berkshire Hathaway's Nebraska Furniture's just NOT notable.)

Edit/Deletion 8) "The former Travolta/Preston estate is part of the portfolio of real estate known as kathy ireland Weddings which stages lavish nuptials at five different private estates..." Issue 1) Incredibly promotional... lavish? This actually reads like it was taken directly from the brochure. Issue 2) It is not about Ireland. Has Ireland ever lived there and had something significant happen there that has been written about by a notable, reliable source?

Edit/Deletion 9) "HOME" to "Home" Issue) The edit is to a word, to match some kind of identity convention, I'm assuming.

Edit/Deletion 10) "Ireland purchased a three-bedroom oceanfront estate on Oahu, Hawaii from John Travolta and Kelly Preston in 2004, which she rents out as one of several kathy ireland Worldwide company vacation villas..." Issue 1) the edit was to LC Ireland's name but the paragraph itself is about a business, not about Ireland. SHE isn't renting it out, her company is. This looks like business promotion under the guise of bio.

Edit/Deletion 11 & 12) "Kathy Ireland became an (a) evangelical Christian..." NO ISSUE - there is no problem with this edit, which is why I went back and restored it on 30 May.

Edit/Deletion 13) "In his February 12, 2013 article in Forbes, contributor Michael Stone challenged claims..." Issue) It's grossly mis-quoted. "Stone stated in this article that Ireland truly defines celebrity fashion..." Stone said no such thing. He pointed to over a dozen celebrity designers and never said ANY of them 'defined'. Also: "Stone served up that Ireland achieved self-made celebrity designer status without using film, music or another talent; to achieve her business success." This sentence has a promotional tone ('served up'?).

Off the point for a moment to say that particular cite? Like the Vogue piece and the Oscar Criticism (Elizabeth Taylor), it is actually on point to a Wikipedia biography. All three cites are reliable sources giving opinion of Ireland's life and impact. The issue as it stands is how they have been used: inappropriately slanted in favor of Ireland, false summary, pulling only the flattering quotes, and misrepresenting the authors' perspectives.

The remaining Edit/Deletions were tweaks to the previous material.

I hope this helps. A previous editor mentioned that there are mentors available at WP:Adopt. For a one-off review by another editor of your edits, there is a sign-up at WP:ER. - EBY (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

EBY, the word Edit cannot be used when you have deleted something. The time and care you have given to each item is wonderful and appreciated. Number 13 was not edited, it was in fact deleted. I will ponder and review the rest of what you stated, but in fact you seem very biased about my work and cite that your reasons for removal were the lack of reliable sources, yet #13 is from Forbes. You removed it entirely without edit. This is a very prominent and respected publication. Kindly restore that, make your appropriate edits and we can continue to debate the rest. To remove that after going into a diatribe about the lack of reliable sources isn't the ethics you're touting. Directly quoting an article certainly isn't required on Wikipedia. I look forward to your comments and those of others on Wikipedia. Anyone else care to comment on this? Borntodeal (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A deletion = an edit. Perhaps not an edit you prefer, but an edit nonetheless. I linked to the policy that supports it. I added a paragraph on how YOU can fix the cite so it aligns with a Biography. Misquotes CAN'T be used but feel free to rewrite the whole add. Balance it, sandbox it, find other cites, make improvements, get another editor to review it, allow your interest to improve this article up to featured status, learn from the links I provided, look at other articles for inspiration, be bold. Remember that Wikipedia isn't writing something new but reflecting what reliable sources reflect about the subject. Good luck. EBY (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

EBY, I prefer education rather than luck. The Wikipedia page on edit states "[T]he process of correcting or revising text, images, or sound," and the notion of deleting something is not present. It's removal and deletion, plainly. I will continue to review what you've done here and kindly don't slash and burn it next round. The Forbes article is solid, put it back and make your proposed changes. You've spent an awful lot of time and effort proving your case, but in the end, the content is key. Give the content a trial and not the editor. You're putting the entire onus on me when I put the content back in and you simply removed it. Make a contribution to that and let's get to compromise. #13, move it forward. You didn't like what I wrote, and I don't see anyone here commenting on how right or wrong you were, it's you and me...let's get #13 into a medium ground. Kindly add it, edit it and make it right. Something may be learned. A collaboration will be the result. Borntodeal (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no onus. If you want to re-write & include the information, you can. If you don't want to, there is no expectation. The policy information I provided is there for you, whatever (and whenever) you decide. EBY (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


The following comment was moved here from the article, where it was included in a template in the section entitled "Modeling". Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

this section is poorly written and needs substantial improvement. The modeling career receives an insignificant amount of attention, although it was the portion of Ireland's life that was most notable in her early career. PETA, for example, receives more attention and is less relevant than modeling. This requires more work from the community. The link cited is invalid and goes "nowhere" at this time}

the paper delivery story[edit]

I edited it to explain things properly.[1] She has mentioned this story on a talk show I saw her on long ago, and in various newspaper and magazine interviews since. Dream Focus 23:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)