Talk:Van Badham

Untitled

You shouldn't be able to write an article about yourself. Of course, just because you are able to do something may not mean that you actually do it.

Agree, I could think of more notable people who are deserving of an article that don't have one, other than this two-timing hack who's only rise to fame is being a self-appointed "expert" on everything she knows absolutely nothing about.

AissBigAndLittle: The above is an extremely strange comment. Whatever else she may do, Badham is a very distinguished and highly awarded playwright. The statement that she is a "two-timing hack who's [sic] only rise to fame is being a self-appointed "expert"" is laughable. I am curious that someone who knows so little about a person - to the extent of obviously not having read their Wikipedia page - is nonetheless willing to edit their talk page. I suggest the contributor stick to editorial issues, for which this forum is intended, and not spew ad hominem bile.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geelongite (talk • contribs) 09:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC) 

Highly dubious references

There are some obviously spurious references here.

There is a ref to [1] which has no date of capture, and no chance of being a link that lasts longer than a year.

The Courier article doesn't remotely support what it is implied to support.

Other links are dead - they were cached links in the first place.

In summary, clearly the whole article is under-referenced, what references there are don't support all that is claimed, and most references are dead because they were clearly transient in nature. The whole things seems to be self-promotion.

BenevolentUncle (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If this was the case a year ago, it seems to no longer be so. The links check out and there is nothing in the current tone that reads as promotional. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.170.158 (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, someone has been hard at work. I'll take off the original research warning, but based on my checking the first 10 references, I will leave in the primary sources warning. The main problem is that most of what I checked relies on things like The Guardian articles that Van wrote herself describing her own history, or 1 on 1 interviews with journalists in local newspapers not exactly known for hard-hitting investigative journalism. (btw, any self-respecting playwright would press the flesh and instigate such interviews, so self-promotion remains entirely possible if not probable.) And there are a couple of weird references, e.g. atpedia.com (wtf?) that is based on a list now published in a wp talk page (presumably because it was original research). Or the indirect reference to a schools locator site that may or may not have actually listed Van as a notable alumna at the time it was accessed (please excuse my cynicism - given the crock a year ago I will remain suspicious). Personally I have no problem with leaving such info in wp so I'm not proposing its deletion (others might), but because using primary sources like these are open to manipulation, it remains appropriate to at least leave in a warning flag. Maybe one day Van will be so famous that academics will critically dissect her early years, and then other academics will provide scholarly review articles on those primary sources, and then someone can replace the primary sources with the secondary sources and remove the warning flag. But until such time, wp does have necessary standards. BenevolentUncle (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)