Talk:Sondra Peterson

Unsourced statements

Let's examinne the following statements:

She was at the center of a number of major product campaigns, including Cutex, and in 1964 she was the official face of Cover Girl.

Sondra Peterson was photographed by many of the world's leading photographers, including Irving Penn.

She was at the center of a number of major product campaigns. "One" does qualify as a number after all, but we really should rely on reliable sources to tell us what consitues a major product campaign. The 2nd sentence states this BLP "was photographed by many of the world's leading photographers", but we are only presented with one. Let's not overstate the case.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

She was at the center of a number of major product campaigns. "One" does qualify as a number after all, but we really should rely on reliable sources to tell us what consitues a major product campaign. The 2nd sentence states this BLP "was photographed by many of the world's leading photographers", but we are only presented with one. Let's not overstate the case.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact she was at the center of a number of campaigns - I referred to and sourced TWO of them: Cutex and Cover Girl. Note that being a "Cover Girl" is not just any old major campaign: it's absolutely huge - it's one of those rare occasions in which the model's name is given equivalent billing to the product itself. Similarly, being photographed by Irving Penn is a rather big deal: he was, with Avedon, the most important glamor photographer of the age. And it appear she was also photographed by Avedon (something I've found references to, but no proper source yet). I'd never heard of her before, but the more I look into this woman, the more I realize that - despite the misfortune of having given birth to a famous novelist - she was an extremely notable figure in her own right. Not just somewhat notable, but at the center of the most important fashion movement of the time. None of which I intend to put into the entry, as it's clearly WP:PEACOCK, but it happens to be the case, which we should demonstrate with sober, sourced information. Can't say that I'm fashion-obsessed myself, but I'm Wikipedia-obsessed (and photography-obsessed) - if you want a sense of how Wikipedia has dealt with equivalent figures, take a look at the entry for Jean Shrimpton. NaymanNoland (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE is completely irrelevant. Qworty (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I could use help here: I've found a MUCH better photograph of the woman - an image shot by Irving Penn. I don't really know how to upload it; and I don't know how to replace the image currently featured. The photograph is here: http://weheartvintage.co/2013/01/01/sondra-peterson-october-vogue-1962/ NaymanNoland (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: that was a call for advice from Little green rosetta - not Qworty (who should not be editing anything remotely connected to Filipacchi). Btw, Qworty - as has been mentioned on your talk page - you've seriously contravened Wikipedia policy regarding BLP - you should probably remove the slander before somebody else does. Just a friendly bit of advice. (Don't worry: I'm not "stung." Nor "hurt." Not even "miffed." Just "sane.") NaymanNoland (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the image and its license indicates this image is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia or Commons. In order to upload a photo we must establish the copyright owner has granted permission for us to use the photo. Typically this requires the license to either be ""CC-BY" or "CC-BY-SA".  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you might save yourself a lot of time and aggravation if you spend a few minutes and read WP:TRUTH, which explains how the sourcing policy works. What you know to be the truth (and I'm not doubting you) is different than being verified by a reliable source. That this BLP subject was the "center" of major campaigns is certainly not unlikely, but we need a source with editorial oversight to say this for a couple of reasons. The first is we expect them to "fact check" their article for accuracy. The second is we need the reliable sources so we can use that inclusion in our article.

The fact that Peterson may have appeared in many ads and photographed by many famous photographers is irrelevant to our sourcing policy. We can't use the ads themselves for verification (to an extent) as they are a primary source. We would need an article from something like Advertising Age or (yes) Vogue that not only verifies that Peterson did these things, but explains why it was interesting.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but look at what we do have here: scans of magazine pages with Peterson in the same spread as Shrimpton. We also have scans (plural) of Peterson photographed by Irving. (That spread was in fact Irving's work.) You're saying that a primary source is not verification??? I don't think it GETS any more solid. Now, you could argue that these primary sources don't attest to notability, but that's a stretch: I don't think it's necessary to make a case that Shrimpton and Irving are important. People who don't know this won't be reading an article about a fashion model. (In fact, people who don't know this probably don't read.) NaymanNoland (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oh come on. Please have a thorough look at WP:PRIMARY. Yeah, you can stick them in there and try to see what happens, but they'll never pass AfD, as I don't believe this entire article would. Qworty (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see your issue. Stick WHAT in there? Avedon? Shrimpton? They ALREADY have major entries in Wikipedia. Both of them. They've more than passed AfD. Let me clarify this with reference to WP:TRUTH: "In Wikipedia's sense, material is verifiable if it can be directly supported by at least one reliable published source." Here's what is verifiable (as opposed to "true"): we have published, solid evidence of Peterson's having been photographed by Avedon, and appearing in a spread with Shrimpton. No argument there, right? This is fully verifiable, via the scans. Now let's talk about "truth" - as defined here. What is true, but (according to you) not verified, is that Avedon and Shrimpton are hugely important, and that this kind of association with them indicates importance. Here things get tricky, but I think we can use this: the entries on both Avedon and Shrimpton have, as I say, more than passed the test of notability: Avedon in particular is recognized BY WIKIPEDIA as a crucial figure, and this recognition is based upon solid, sourced quotations. For example: "The New York Times said that 'his fashion and portrait photographs helped define America's image of style, beauty and culture for the last half-century.'" So, now we have primary verification, and - in addition - a truth that has also been verified. The concern here (and I don't know how you deal with this) is to make the link, Wikipedia-style: Avedon=important, hence Peterson=important. NaymanNoland (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You need secondary sources. You're engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Those are huge editing no-nos. Where are the WP:RS that are ABOUT this woman?? They don't exist. Therefore she isn't notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Qworty: I didn't realize that I was responding to your concern about AfD - I thought is was Little green rosetta. So pardon my long explanation: basically, what I'm saying is that your expressed concern is frivolous. (And, let's face it, probably not very sincere.) Read WP:TRUTH. And as I said before: you really shouldn't be engaging in anything to do with Filipacchi. And really should remove your obscene slanderous rant from your talk page. NaymanNoland (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

These aren't "my" concerns. These are policies. And if you think Wikipedia policies are "frivolous," then you don't belong on Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I take Wikipedia policies very seriously. BLP in particular. Now, about those obscene, slanderous rants? NaymanNoland (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If OTRS doesn't like something on the project, they can remove it at any time. (They'll certainly get no protest from me.) What do you think, that Wikipedia never existed before you came along? Content disputes are a dime a dozen, and so are dramas, and if you do decide to stick around here, much to your surprise you'll find yourself respecting many of the edits of some of the people you initially didn't like. Big deal, huh? Qworty (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

NaymanNoland, we can't use the spreads photo's as "evidence" of notability because, as Qworty correctly notes, they are primary sources. WP:RS and WP:OR are two must reads if you haven't checked them out already. If you read through them you will see why we can't use the spreads, but rather need RS instead. Also, please be careful with words like "slander". The community doesn't take kindly to legal threats. As you might imagine, there is a link for that as well WP:NLT. In fact, there is a link to a policy, guideline or essay for almost everything on wikipedia, but don't let that worry you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, right now she's really nothing more than a very cute little WP:SPA--another important page for her to read--who's working very hard and very devotedly to advance the promotional and self-seeking needs of one extremely wealthy family. Perhaps someday she'll grow into a real WP editor. And then maybe on another day, in the distant, distant future--say, next week--by accident or circumstance, she'll happen to be right about something, and then she'll need big strong editors like you and me to come rescue her, and we'll do it, and if she really is the virtuous and clear-thinking person she claims to be, she will be vocally grateful that her enemies have become our enemies, and yes, we will be proud to call her a Wikipedian. But until that happens, as I say, she really isn't anything more than a very cute and purry little WP:SPA. She thinks she's special, but unfortunately, we see hundreds of them every week. As she likes to say: sigh. Qworty (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm very careful with the word "slander." I use it to describe slander. As in, what Qworty posted. Note that "slander" has two senses: one legal, and one informal. The legal sense is not for me to determine. The informal sense? Um, try to interpret this as anything but slander: "I think it's going to come out that the only reason she got any books published at all was because her rich daddy was a huge big deal in the publishing world. And the reason she can't get any books published anymore is because her big rich daddy is retired now and no longer a heavyweight at all in that world." - Qworty. Not only do I interpret this as slander, but so do sober people on Wikipedia. And I quote Tvoz, with respect to your slander: "Well, I think there certainly are questionable, maybe defamatory, allegations there, and it would seem that BLP policy is not being fully followed. This is a long-time editor who is well aware of policy, so suggesting that he/she step back was appropriate as a first step to diffuse the drama, and I see that the next step I expected, of asking the editor to remove the material him/herself, has been done at User talk:Qworty#BLP concerns by a well-respected admin. But policy calls for the material to be removed either voluntarily by its author or by any editor, as we have an obligation to not defame our subjects, even in the heat of argument." For what it's worth, the word "defamatory" is in fact a legal designation. Moreover, if I were discussing the law - which I'm not - then I would be using the term "libel," which covers written/published defamation, as opposed to slander, which - in the strict legal sense - pertains to speech. NaymanNoland (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You're so dogged. It really . . . turns me on. But I'm confused. I removed some material from my talk page today at the behest of Slim Virgin. I'm confused as to what more you're asking me to do. Because, you know . . . really . . . I would do almost anything for you. . . . Qworty (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Right. So we've dealt with the question of Qworty's slander. Let's move on. Here's why you should not be involved in this discussion, Qworty. You have demonstrated - not simply to me; not simply to Wikipedia; but to THE WORLD AT LARGE - that you are incapable of editing in good faith. When the mainstream media characterizes you - Qworty - as a ranting, slanderous, biased editor, then... well, we should take that seriously. I do hope you've read the Salon article about you? If not, let me quote: your screed was interpreted (rightly) as "an apoplectic defense by one Wikipedia editor of actions that other Wikipedia editors labeled 'revenge editing.' There’s a lot of anger here (not to mention an unhealthy fixation with excrement!). Call me persnickety, but reading Qworty’s comments did not give me the greatest faith in Wikipedia’s internal process for building an encyclopedia of human knowledge."

Those aren't my words, regarding you. They are Salon's. THEY have identified you as an apoplectic, vengeful disgrace, with an unhealthy scatological fixation. So, that's what we're dealing with here: you, Qworty, as the star of an article entitled "Wikipedia's Shame."

Now, Wikipedia requires that we assume good faith in our fellow editors, which I do, until the most extreme (and frankly comical) evidence points out that we're dealing with someone like you. Since we know that you will do everything within your power to sabotage any entry remotely related to Filipacchi, it's a waste of time to discuss matters of policy with you. I'm happy to debate subtle points of epistemology with almost anyone, into the wee hours of the morning - just not with you. As for Little green rosetta: I've been giving her the benefit of the doubt. Even though she accused me - on the basis of what she termed "behavioral and technical evidence" - of using sock puppets. Even though, when that proved to be false (okay, a lie), she didn't apologize, but instead came here to support your - Qworty's - frivolous snark. Despite all of this, I've given her the benefit of the doubt. Now shall we get back to the tedious matter of editing this article? (By "we," I mean me and the editor who hasn't starred in an article entitled "Wikipedia's Shame.") NaymanNoland (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)