Talk:Jessica Yaniv

Legal name

Her legal name is Jessica Simpson[1], and the lead should reflect that. My version may have been clumsy, but we should be clear of her current legal name. The current version positions one name in the same way we normally show somebody's birth name. Since we can't show her birth name (for obvious reasons) we need to show "Simpson" and "Yaniv" and make clear which is legal and which is widely used. Saying she is "known" as "Jessica Simpson" implies that it's just an alias she goes by or people choose to call her. It's her legal name. -Rob (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for missing this section. WP:BLPPRIVACY says it makes sense to bring up full names when they've been widely covered, but I don't really think this fits the bill based on the two sources that reference it. I don't think this is a huge issue, but it seems to add very little and runs a risk of needlessly publicizing information that the subject wants to keep private. Nblund ^talk 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

sources

There's an ample supply of reliable balanced sources. Let's not rely on Western Standard or similar sources that show a negative bias. -Rob (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Trans activist

Resolved

He is not a trans activst— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.163.252 (talk • contribs) 13:22, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

Not big on reading, I guess. You don't even have to open the actual sources, the headlines alone confirm she is a trans activist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

More sourcing problems

On a minor note, can we please use {{cite news}} to format citations appropriately, and include all relevant information on sources, and use archive urls to avoid link-rot.

More signficantly, there seems to be a move to use trash sources.

• In this edit there is a Yahoo Australia News link that relies on a Daily Mirror story. I'm not too sure about the reliability of Yahoo News Australia, but, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Daily Mail is clearly not reliable. Also, the story of the gynaecologist is all based on some Twitter postings. There's no source stating an actual official complaint was failed. I think it's best we don't mention every tweet by or about Yaniv.
• In this edit there is a link to a Quillette article by Lindsay Shepherd. This is blatantly unreliable. Not only is Quillette listed as unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but the author, was involved in a deeply personal and hostile online feud, which included a ban (for a time) from Twitter. Both have written deeply hostile things about the other, and neither is a reliable source on the other.
• The Post Millennial is also on the same list of unreliable sources. It just happens to also have Shepherd as a periodic writer as well.

All unreliable sources have to be removed. If there's no reliable source for a claim, it should be removed. There's ample coverage in reliable sources. --Rob (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the threat from my talk page. Rather than you wikisplaining the article Thivierr, let's work through the refs one by one. Thank you. CatCafe (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

All unreliable sources and BLP violations must be removed immediately, per relevant policy. The onus is on the person wishing to include something, to justify it. --Rob (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It us incumbent upon you to show good faith, which you have not on my talk page. There are reliable sources for all the text additions Trivierr. Will you allow the content to be returned if the RSs are included? CatCafe (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources, per WP:RS, and ensure the content matches the sources, and there is not a problem. But, I think you'll find some stuff just isn't covered by reliable sources, or isn't covered in the same manner. ---Rob (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Good, thank you for now agreeing to act in good faith. The Star Observer is the premier Australian LGBTI publication, it is a RS, any probs?[2] CatCafe (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the section referencing the complaint about the gynecologist, as it really appears WP:UNDUE for inclusion. I can't even find any indication that Yaniv ever actually pursued the complaint, so the entire amounts to Yaniv tweeting something and some other people tweeting back at her. I don't see how that could possibly warrant mention, much less a full subsection. Nblund ^talk 21:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

sourcing for harassment allegations

I'm having a tough time seeing how the level of detail in the Jessica_Yaniv#Alleged_online_harassment section could be justified by the extant sourcing. It doesn't appear to have garnered even a passing mention in high quality sources, and it seems like gossip that is not feasible to cover neutrally for the simple reason that neutral sources don't cover it. I've trimmed what seemed like excessive detail, but it could probably be removed all together. Nblund ^talk 21:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@CatCafe: If it wasn't clear here, I don't think the name of the accuser is the sole issue. Typically, Wikipedia has had a fairly high bar for inclusion when it comes to these kinds of allegations. Unless the standards have recently changed, I think this level of detail for something that is not widely covered is likely to be a BLP violation. Nblund ^talk 22:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but I think the section should stay, as there are 2 (if not more) reliable sources reporting on this topic. CatCafe (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What's the other reliable source for that specific claim? Nblund ^talk 22:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Look I really don't have time to debate your tangents. But I'm replying to your proposal to delete the section, and the section relies on 3 RS (they're in the article, and I don't have to republish them here for you). If you want these classified as non-RS then this is not the correct forum. Good bye. CatCafe (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm specifically talking about the Jessica_Yaniv#By_Yaniv section - the portion I removed comes from one source alone. You're not under any obligation to do anything, but if you intend to have a say in what the entry looks like, you're going to have to be willing to talk about it. "What other sources exist for this" is not a tangent, it's the basis of determining WP:DUE weight. Nblund ^talk 01:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Look honestly your asking me a question about something I never made and it's badgering. I said "there are 2 (if not more)" and then gave examples of 3 RS. Now you demand more? Please look for the additional RS yourself, rather than demanding others do your work for you. OK? Please go and learn how to search for Rel sources rather than duscuss with me. CatCafe (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed a sentence from that section. You restored that sentence here. You restored it, I'm asking you to justify it. If you can't justify it, then we should remove it. Nblund ^talk 03:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleting Reliable Sources

Can RS's not be deleted from the article. The same editors who are deleting them are then complaining about a lack of them. It's counterproductive and oversight is required. Thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you referencing this edit? I removed them because they were unused and causing an error. I see you've restored them inside a comment tag, which seems fine, but that doesn't have any bearing on the AfD. Nblund ^talk 03:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with the AfD. It's got to do with editors whining that there's not enough reliable sources available when there is, or seemingly was, before they were deleted. Thank you for agreeing to desist from this. Please go out and find some more if you like, that would be helpful. CatCafe (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I really don't understand your complaint here. Nblund ^talk 04:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No-one asked you to involve yourself in this thread. You don't need to take everything personally. CatCafe (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nblund, I specifically asked that RS's not be deleted, then you specifically went ahead and deleted the RSs I had added. You may edit if you may, but please cease your need to eliminate RS. I cannot work with you under such conditions. CatCafe (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, this source is not useable for a BLP. The other two sources were removed because they weren't actually being used in the article. I've restored the other two sources to the "unused sources" comment tag. But do you understand that nothing inside these tags is visible to readers? I don't think it causes any harm, but it's really not reasonable to expect other editors to conform to your idiosyncratic preference to keep unused sources there. If you really want to do this, you should really just do the legwork yourself. It's definitely not a valid reason for restoring material that violates BLP. Nblund ^talk 05:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If a source is very reliable, informative, and relevant; but not yet used as a source, then it should go under "Further reading". Hidden/commented-out text is useless clutter, that confuses future editors. However, I don't see anything here that qualifies for added "Further reading". Also, given the attempted use of "sydneycriminallawyers", it's worth noting that the default assumption of anything found online, is it's not usable. If a source is blacklisted as a perennial bad source, then it's definitely unusable. But, even if it hasn't yet been banned by Wikipedia, it may still be unusable. Some sources are good for certain things (like non-contentious facts), but not usable when there's a clear bias that makes reliability questionable. If you read an article, and it's overtly hostile (or promotional) of a person, that means you probably shouldn't use it. While there's an active debate on the sufficiency of sources, what doesn't help, is adding mediocre sources to an article that has good sources. All it does it drown the good with the bad. Nobody is impressed by a flood of junk. --Rob (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Titania McGrath

Seriously? Titania McGrath is a fictional character. They do not exist. There is a comedian who uses that name to mock people. If we did cite the book, we would name Andrew Doyle (comedian), not Titania McGrath as the author. But, being only a comedian, they are not a reliable source. Now, if a reliable sources mention the book by Doyle, then maybe that's worth mentioning. User:CatCafe, you added this based on an apparent belief this character is real? Then, you try adding it back, while admitting it's a parody, but still referring to Titania McGrath as a "satarist". McGrath is not a satarist. Doyle is a satarist. McGrath does not exist. This is why it's necessary to be cautious when adding sources. Please, only add reputable sources, and don't just add every random piece of garbage you find on the internet. This is seriously embarrassing to Wikipedia, to be taken in by such a well known jokester. Being fooled by bad sources is bad enough, but now we're using fictional sources? --Rob (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Lighten up Thivierr. Maybe I'm not the idiot you subscribe me to be. You probably feel it's time to go running to BLP/N to dob me in and report my errors for editing in a WP:BOLD manner? Last time you got over excited and reverted a slab of coding errors I had fixed - counterproductive. The crime here is that I accidentally referred to a comedian by his pseudonym, and used a not so great ref. No-one was defamed, no-one was slandered - but you saw the need to write a short-story suggesting I am a fool as above. Please lighten up & Move on. CatCafe (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOLD doesn't mean add everything you find on net for others to fix. BLPs require extra sensitivity. Using a pseudonym isn't a big deal per se. Many authors are known and referred by them interchangeably with their own name. However, in this case, the author made an intentional hoax intended to mock those that take him seriously. Your initial use of him indicated you were fully taken in by the hoax and suggested Wikipedia was too. A hoax that has long long long been known as such and doesn't really hide itself that much. A little like falling for an April fools Day gag from last year. --Rob (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@CatCafe: No one is calling you an idiot, but if you can't see the problem with using this source, then you need to take a step back from editing biographies and familiarize yourself with the WP:BLP guidelines. Competence is required, and so is being able to take constructive criticism. Nblund ^talk 14:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Book usage

I removed "DELETED: Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election" as this is not a source of facts, but is a source of commentary. A book of political opinion, should be used pretty much like we would use an opinion piece in a newspaper: state what the writers opinion is and attribute it to the writer in the body of the article. Even if a newspaper is a reliable source of facts, we still don't treat it's opinion pieces as sources of fact. Same goes with book publishers. This publisher may publish books that we can rely on for facts. This book isn't one. Murphy's twitter ban is a non-contentious fact, supported by factual reporting in the National Post. It doesn't need redundant citations. Whether Murphy *should* have been banned, and whether she aught to have said/done what she did, is a matter of opinion, and as opinion, if covered, should be done so with appropriate in-line attribution. This approach is already used in the article under the "Impact and reactions" section. --Rob (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute the removal since you say it is redundant non-contentious information. However, major literary publishing houses assert fact checking to its books and this is a discussion of a fact; as opposed to whatever fact-checking, if any, a newspaper does to its editorials/columnists. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yaniv's words in student newspaper

So, yet again, here is a trash source that's being used. It's a statement by "Yaniv" in a student newspaper. We don't even have to consider the reliability of the student newspaper, as we're talking about Yaniv's candidate statement, written in the first person. The subject of the bio is not a reliable source of facts about the subject of the bio, especially when those statements are self-promoting (as in, she was running for a position, and justifying why she should get it). --Rob (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know what this adds. Even if attributed to Yaniv, it's probably undue since no secondary sources appear to have covered it.Nblund ^talk 18:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)