Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb

Untitled

A quick new page on an academic, perhaps noted more in the media than via academic work, so far. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC))

COI, advert

The tone of "how to find" her articles, and the overall content seems a little too advert like with far too much use of primary sources. I noticed the article has a WP:SPA editor User:MdeBohun who appears to have a WP:COI. Widefox; talk 23:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Book dedication

Can we please have a discussion here? Woodroar (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

book dedication to her husband

this is trivia - it is being edit war into the story, I have no idea why - it is referenced to a google book link - it is not noteworthy -

She dedicated her 2012 book, A Visitor's Companion to Tudor England, to her husband Drake.

http://books.google.com/books?id=UFSI-Nc_cQcC&pg=PT2%7Caccessdate=26 April 2014|date=2013-06-04|publisher=Pegasus Books|isbn=9781453298909|pages=2–

Please discuss reasons for inclusion in the life story - ta - I told the edit war user of this chat - User:Katieh5584 .. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katieh5584&diff=prev&oldid=60680993319:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC) - they just deleted it - I also left a note of this discussion for another multiple inserter of the disputed content User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom&diff=prev&oldid=606816862

it is also a sales link - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Information regarding spouses isn't trivia, but the context in which it's mentioned here is problematic. Ideally we need a third party source for personal information like this. Who's to say whether Drake is actually his given name or a nickname? We should leave this out unless she decides to give an in-depth interview about herself. Also, the birth date has crept in, which was previously removed because it couldn't be verified. This is Paul (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's gone. As I indicated in my summary, it's not only trivia (which we have no problem with removing on a simple courtesy basis) but it's also original research, since it's sourced to the book itself. If this is a major aspect of the subject's life and work I'm sure we can find secondary sources to support it - otherwise I see no reason to keep it around. Let's not sweat the petty things (or pet the sweaty things). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

1) As a "dedication:" it is trivia. As a marker of a life event that we cover in every biography, it is a life event that we cover in every biography. We dont censor peoples life events because they now wish they had made different choices.

2) It is in NO WAY original research to state that she dedicated a book to her husband when the book clearly shows she dedicated the book to her husband.

3) yes of course she is a reliable source for what and who she dedicated her book to, unless you are implying that she lied about having a husband. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As a "dedication:" it is trivia. You revert warred to the limit to keep this rubbish in the article, you seem to be usually smart, not certain what your issue is with this living person... it is a clear sales link also - needs to stay out - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

googlebooks is not a sales link - they do not sell book. they are a courtesy link that allow people to actually see and verify the source content and are used in probably half or more of the articles on the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

it is a sales link - click on anything and buy her books - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UFSI-Nc_cQcC&pg=PT2%7Caccessdate%3D26&redir_esc=y - User :TheRedPenOfDoom do you dispute that it is possible to buy the stories books from this link? http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UFSI-Nc_cQcC&pg=PT2%7Caccessdate%3D26&redir_esc=y - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

googlebooks is not a sales link. they may link to places where you can buy the books and if you think that a site that links to a site that sells something counts as a sales link and a not appropriate source, well then there will be no links to any sources! Please go make your case at the policy page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with TRPoD -- putting all other issues aside, Googlebooks is definitely not a commercial site in this context; it has a perfectly informative usage which our readers might very well find useful and the fact that Google supports the project through incidental trafficking links to services which themselves sell the book is not really significantly germane; Googlebooks is used as a a locale for sources and an otherwise useful external links in I-don't-know-how-many Wikipedia articles. This is clearly a WP:SNOW issue. Snow talk 20:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an ANI thread about this, TRPoD - if you're going to deny this trivial courtesy to the subject or nitpick the definition of OR, might as well do it over there and see what everyone thinks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I get it now, a wikia editor doesn't like the idea that the person the story is about is not wanting mention of her estranged spouse in the story and the wikia editors don't like that and so they edit war to keep the factoid in the story referenced to a single google book sales link. Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

your incorrect assertion about googlebooks being a sales link and therefore an invalid source is just one of the many incorrect assertions which invalidates your statement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom Your edit warring to include the fact that she dedicated a book to her husband refereed to a single google books link just becauce the story owner objected is excessive to say the least - its been took down now anyways Mosfetfaser (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

your fixation on the "dedication" is the another aspect of why your assertions are incorrect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts to this. Whether or not Lipscomb wishes she'd made different personal choices is of no consequence to the content of this article. The majority of people who get divorced probably feel the same way about the person they married in happier times, but that doesn't mean details of a failed marriage should be erased from the public domain. What is important here, however, is whether we can reference it with a reliable, third party source, and a personal dedication in a book is regarded as a primary source, so not suitable as a reference in an encyclopedia. Interestingly, Google Books are used in plenty of links (I've used them myself, in fact), but I've never encountered something of this nature before. If she takes the view that is suggested about her marriage then it's unlikely she'll ever speak candidly about her personal life, meaning no reliable source to use here. Therefore, let's leave it out. This is Paul (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

One more for "leave it out without better sources". Yes, it's absolutely true that for most people a marriage is (a) noncontroversial, and (b) very important to their bio. But in this case, it seems that (a) her marriage is controversial, and (b) her marriage has been ignored by Wikipedia:reliable sources. So WP:BLP applies. Unless we get some better sources for the marriage, we should also leave it out. (BTW, there are a few blogs on the web that do mention the wedding, the date, and Drake's last name; but they're blogs. We need better than that.) --GRuban (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Clear "leave it out". Many books have a dedication, often to a family member. There is nothing remarkable about this, it is not worth mentioning in an article about an author.

dispute resolution

for those interested in whether or not the marriage be covered, please join the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Suzannah_Lipscomb. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

conflicted user header on article

I looked over the story and removed any content that appeared unreferenced and promotion and then removed the conflicted header. If anyone objects please explain what benefit that header still has regarding the content now left in the story, ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia contributor, MdeBohun

In the header it claims - A Wikipedia contributor, User:MdeBohun (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

WP:SPI does not exist for this claim - what allowance for the addition of this header is there within wikia rules? what is the benefit or relation to the current published story for the reader? Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the header - it was pure speculation, and there is no benefit to the reader and not confirmed by wikia investigation - the article has also since any edits from the claimed writer been heavily edited Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No one was suggesting they were a sockpuppet? Only that they're editing pattern suggested they had a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If the suggestion is that they are the person in the story? then a wp:spi or a wp:coi report is required for such a claim - what content in the article that user wrote do you think is now problematic? Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the user admitted they edited "at the request of the subject"... [1] —C.Fred (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ow, cool, ta for that link. Is there any problematic content left in the article from that writer? Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a header does not serve the reader and if there is problematic content it should be discussed and amended. If the editor is problematic then there are venues like WP:COI to attend to that.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing at the request of the subject is not the same as a personal or professional connection to the subject; if it were, then every article edited by anyone after the subject complains (for example, through OTRS) would have to be marked that way. Unless there is a more specific statement about personal or professional connection ("I am her aunt"; "she is my co-worker"; something like that), that tag is not appropriate. Removing. --GRuban (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

being in long term close contact and making almost all of your edits "at the request of X" is sufficient, particularly when the edits are all self serving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree as to this point; if the contributor's edits are significantly problematic, that's one thing -- and forgive me, but I don't know the specifics of their activity here well enough to know if that is the case -- but it is entirely possible to edit with a latent COI without actually breaking any policy or adding/weighting/treating content inappropriately. Efforts should be made to educate the editor (who I understand may be operating as single purposes account) of our more non-negotiable guidelines in this area, but I don't see an admission of working at the behest of, or in concert with, the subject as a in-itself reason to call their contributions into question. If they have been working in contradiction to our content policies, some diffs would be useful to illustrate that case. Snow talk 20:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is one of the Worlds leading experts in History and a very visable TV personality on the BBC, History Channel etc- why on Earth would she not have a Wikipedia page? This looks like a case of some type of subterfuge. We need to work on getting this page back to its pristine state. It would appear that the person who caused all of this fuss is now banned?Thewho515 (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

notability and sources

Whoever thinks she is not worth a story on wiki should open that discussion. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (May 2014) This older point was ok and did not require any headers? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzannah_Lipscomb&diff=608234184&oldid=607500424 perhaps better for the person to get this deleted ? Mosfetfaser (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the last ok story, I don't see anything wrong with it. If she does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines please start a page for that chat Mosfetfaser (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

there is an apparent consensus here that Lipscomb is not a reliable source for content about herself and such claims require third party verification for us to include.

And there is no substitute for WP:GNG except for providing third party coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"there is an apparent consensus here that Lipscomb is not a reliable source for content about herself" - User:TheRedPenOfDoom - I don't see that consensus, where is it? she is imo a good source for simple truths about her life story - Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Suzannah_Lipscomb] it has been declared that there is a consensus that she is not a reliable source for the simple truth that she was married. if she is not a valid source for that simple truth, then she is not for anything else either. but no matter how reliable she is for content about herself, her declarations about herself have zero impact upon whether or not others have found her worthy of covering. That is still severely lacking.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

that discussion is meaningless to her notability - and irrelevant to her ability to source simple facts about her life - deleting and templating her because you lost that discussion is laughable and a violation of WP:BLP- LIVING PERSON Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"that discussion is meaningless to her notability" -- uhh, yes, that is what I said "but no matter how reliable she is for content about herself, her declarations about herself have zero impact upon whether or not others have found her worthy of covering. That is still severely lacking." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

When the consensus is that Lipscomb is not a reliable source content about her own life, then applying that consensus is absolutely NOT a violation of BLP which requires NPOV application and only the highest quality of reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

attacking this person repeatedly calling her not notable and templating her repeatedly is a vio of WP:blp - so lets remove this story then Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

ROFL - please actually read WP:BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: @Mosfetfaser: can you figure out where did TheRedPenOfDoom attacked the person? And @TheRedPenOfDoom: if you believe that this person is not notable, you can try Afd. OccultZone (Talk) 15:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzannah Lipscomb. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Dr Suzannah Lipscomb is one of the Worlds leading experts in History and a very visable TV personality on the BBC, History Channel etc- why on Earth would she not have a Wikipedia page? I have read all of this and (now disabled) user RedPenofDoom? seemed to have started up all of this. In the process has dome a lot of damage to Dr Lipscombs Wiki page. I think it should be changed back. She is a very much a person of note!Thewho515 (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

She isn't "one of the World's leading experts in history" by a long long way, though she's certainly a perfectly respectable academic. She is notable mainly for being a presentable camera-friendly face of history for lightweight TV-history shows. Paul B (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is precisely what makes her eminently notable. --NellieBly (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course she's notable, though I'd balk at "eminently". I have said as much at the deletion page. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the headers

The chat at the delete page seems to be strongly supporting note worthy person and the story has now been improved by others than the coi editor and non primary sources are in plenty now so I took down the respective , related headers - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well done Thewho515 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

and super ta to all improvers of the story, it is now much improved Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Inquiry

Is the question be debated above simply whether or not to mention the existence of the marriage based on that dedication? I'll go ahead and note my perspective upon the matter as contingent upon the answer to that question. If it is a simple matter of noting the marriage as a matter of fact, I'm inclined to agree that the source is likely acceptable in that role, but possibly not sufficient; on the one hand, it may be primary, but primary sources are acceptable for making simple, non-synthetic claims, while on the other, lacking any kind of context (or even so much as a last name of the spouse or duration of the marriage), makes the addition of dubious encyclopedic value. I share the sentiment voiced above by This is Paul: whether she wants the marriage noted or not is of zero concern to our purposes here; if however we have no substantial, and source-able, details about the marriage beyond speculation about even the basics, it's best this element is left out until appropriate sources providing deeper context can be found. I don't know if the lack of details in this area is a result of her concerted efforts, she and her husband being private people, or just a lack of media interest in the detail, but it doesn't really matter to the content/sourcing assessment. Snow talk 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more Thewho515 (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Name

Why are we insisting on putting her married name as "also known as" when one source uses it? I did a quick Google search and... C'mon people. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

agreed. It's one aberrant source; all her books and articles and film credits appear to be under this name. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure I quite follow you when you say that only one source uses it. Just by looking at the first page of your link to the Google search results, I count at least three distinct web pages [2] [3], two of which are reliable sources (the other is from gopetition.org and appears to be on Wikipedia's blacklist), that refer to her with "Lawhead". I don't see why we shouldn't include this name, since it seems that many sources do in fact use this name. Artichoker^[talk] 02:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the same Epsom college source. Where are the "many sources"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

They are different sources from Epsom college which mention her in different contexts. Also as stated above, there is the link from gopetition.org which refers to her with that name as well. Artichoker^[talk] 02:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Petitions (especially online ones) are not reliable sources. And it's still one source (Epsom College) using that name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, gopetition.org is certainly not a reliable source. I simply brought it up to illustrate that perhaps the name is more pervasive than originally thought. I do understand your points though, and I'm fine if the name Lawhead isn't included due to lack of other sources. Artichoker^[talk] 02:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you put a COI tag up. Can you briefly explain what sections need to be looked at? There are a lot of eyes on this article and puffery has been ruthlessly purged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I placed the tag due to several of the major editors of the article having a vested and personal interested in the subject matter. Since the article is currently part of a somewhat contentious blitz of editing (being editing extremely frequently each day now with a lot of information changing), there is the possibility for content that violates the article's neutrality or is of undue weight. Due to this scenario right now, I feel it is appropriate for the article to have a COI tag. What do you think? Artichoker^[talk] 02:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh I agree that there's been COI editing in the past but TheRedPenOfDoom has been at the content and I'm confident in his ability to root out any puffery. I can't see anything that obviously violates NPOV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about the instability of the article, especially when we have COI editors who are willing to edit war on it. However, if you confident that the article in its current state is neutral, I would say the tag can probably be removed then. Artichoker^[talk] 02:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait for other editors to chime in. Things go a lot smoother that way :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 02:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is what I have said all along re: name. It's still one source (Epsom College) No edit war was ever intended or necessary. Cheers Thewho515 (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

NeilN I am not even going to change the name back to the proper "Lipscomb" and not "Lawhead" which is not accurate. User Lw1982 has chosen to make a FIFTH edit to the page. I expect they revert the name as it was left. It seemed like a rational agreement. This user was warned for edit warring. everyone should follow the rules or at least join in the discussion Thewho515 (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The definitive policy is given under [WP:NAME][WP:FULLNAME]: "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname." No policy reason has been presented for preferring Lawhead, and indeed the preponderance of the source weighs in favor of Lipscomb. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NAME is about the name of the article not the also known as names, which I am pretty sure this discussion is about. XFEM Skier (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry: I meant WP:FULLNAME (see "maiden name") MarkBernstein (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That is fine but I am not sure it applies here still. If there are sources that give her as both names then the other name should be included, although not given as her primary name. For example if say Matthew Perry uses that name but there are a number of sources that call him Matt Perry we should include that, but given as an also known as, because they are. Sometimes you don't get to pick what you are called. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree WP:FULLNAME doesn't quite apply but WP:UNDUE does. IMO adding the name places undue weight on what one source calls her. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We have little or no reason to think that anyone will be confused by using the name "Suzannah Lipscomb". It's used in all her books, all her film credits, and all the secondary sources we've found with the exception of one social article about a college dinner. This is not analogous to an entertainer like John Wayne or a writer like Mark Twain; or even a historical figure like Elizabeth Gaskell who is best known by her married name. Indeed, I am extremely puzzled by the desire to drag out this discussion through reversion and pedantic talk page disputation; this isn't even a close call. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

To Do

Instead of wrangling about the subject's married name, someone might mine her scholarly papers. [[4]] MarkBernstein (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also be useful to include all her awards that were on the page once, e.g. In 2011, she was awarded a public engagement grant (People Award) from the Wellcome Trust to fund ‘All the King’s Fools’, a performance project in which actors with learning disabilities played the Tudor period’s ‘naturalabout fools’ at Hampton Court Palace, which won a 2012 Museums + Heritage Award for Excellence. And most prestigious of all, in 2012, she was awarded the Nancy Roelker Prize by the Sixteenth Century Society for her journal article, ‘Crossing Boundaries: Women’s Gossip, Insults and Violence in Sixteenth-Century France’ in French History (Vol 25, No. 4).

You will also see that she did not start work at NCH in 2012, but in 2011. This is a quote from her website "In October 2011, she took up her post as Convenor for History and Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at New College of the Humanities

I fail to see how reference [1] proves her middle names as there is absolutely no reference to them in this reference, so her middle names should be deleted.

I realise that as a hated COI person it is unlikely that anybody will take any notice of any of this, but if Wikipedia is seeking truth it seems quite ridiculous when everything I have said can be verified elsewhere.MdeBohun (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

References

.MdeBohun Patience: we'll get it fixed. Eyes are now focused. If you like, contact me by email. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence of the notability of these awards such as independent third party sources covering them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

MdeBohun Please read the reference [1] in full it does actually say "Suzannah Rebecca Gabriella Lipscomb; b. Dec. 7, 1978" Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Roelker Prize: [[5]] [[6]]. Plenty of references in Google to other prize winners. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Roelker Prize:[[7]] [[8]] [[9]]MdeBohun (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Blogs and press releases are not considered reliable references. Theroadislong (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

But the web site of the organization granting the prize is definitive: cf. Academy Awards, Booker Prize, Nobel Prize. Is the question here (a) whether the prize was awarded to the subject; (b) whether the prize is notable -- i.e. covered by reliable sources; or (c) how difficult can we make things for other editors :) ? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

More references for All The King's Fools: [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] I have repeated the History Today reference as it is a magazine, not a blog. MdeBohun (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Where should the sentence about Lipscomb writing newspaper and magazine articles go? It used to be on the page. It went something like this "Lipscomb regularly writes articles for newspapers and history magazines, and writes a bi-monthly article for History Today."[[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] MdeBohun (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I might rename the "Books" section to "Publications", and then add this sentence with two or three representative pieces. The French history essay which won the Roelker prize could go here, along with the History Today columns, and perhaps the Telegraph review. It's not necessary to include every paper and article, of course; the highlights will suffice. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

we are not a CV we do not list every publication. every book, OK; highly cited journal articles or articles that have otherwise been influential in the field, OK; pieces that have won notable awards, OK; items that have received third party notice for their notoriety or other reasons, OK. But in the main, no reason for an encyclopedia to cover standard short piece publications. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

MarkBernstein I think there should be some mention of such work, and leave it to you to decide how best it should be put up so as not to offend TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom's highly trained sensibilities.MdeBohun (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested edit

It would also be useful to have some positive quotes about her programmes as well as the very negative ones - I have a few here:

Re: 'I Never Knew That About Britain', a positive review can be found here:

http://nativemonster.com/lifestyle/tv/tv-review-i-never-knew-that-about-britain, and a quote from it is 'I Never Knew That About Britain aims to educate the viewer with fascinating facts about the country they live in - and it does do that.'

Re: 'Henry and Anne'. Two positive reviews can be found here:

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/csywzm/henry-viii--anne-the-lovers-who-changed-history--series-1---episode-1, and a quote from it is 'Historian Suzannah Lipscomb examines the extraordinary story o the tumultuous love affair between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, beginning by exploring the seven-year courtship of the royal couple. Using dramatic reconstructions and first-hand accounts, she delve into their backgrounds and personalities, searching for the trigger - personal and political - that would lead to their falling in love.'

and

http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/459530/Fatal-attraction-New-documentary-reveals-romantic-secrets-of-Henry-VIII-and-Anne-Boleyn, and a quote from it is 'Henry and Anne draws on first-hand accounts to tell the story of their seven year courtship, their marriage and, eventually Anne's execution at the orders of her husband.' MdeBohun (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done edits requested above. --Mdann52talk to me! 19:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Dealt with --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Admin help please Could some kind Admin please remove from the history of this page asap some numbers accidentally left by User:MdeBohun earlier today. She has quite correctly removed them from the page, but I feel we should ensure they vanish from the record totally, and I have no idea how to get this done, except by asking here? Thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Roxy the dog, WP:RFO is what you want. Quicker and more private. --NeilN talk to me 15:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I have asked there. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC) That was nicely quick. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

pic

Can someone crop the image to a headshot to remove that incongruous and distracting ladder?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't tweak it myself, but as the surrounding is quite dark cropping the image might help with that too. This is Paul (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've cropped and tweaked the image but not sure how you upload a new version? I've only ever uploaded my own photos. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Theroadislong, in the File history section of the image click the "Upload a new version" link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't see a link called "Upload a new version" sorry! Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Theroadislong, are you logged into Commons? It's right above the File usage header. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, when an image is cropped like that, it's better to upload it as a new image, showing in the license image that it's a derivative of the old image, rather than replace the old image. It keeps the audit trail better for image rights. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK done it, I hadn't noticed I wasn't logged into commons thank you for the help. 14:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks grand. This is Paul (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

I don't know where else to ask this. This website is now more truthful, but I've found Wiki host this page: [[22]] which includes many of the things that have been removed from this page. Can this celebrity page please be brought up to date - Suzannah Lipscomb has never published under the name Suzannah Lipscomb Lawhead, one of the many inaccuracies in this page.MdeBohun (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the site is anything to do with us. You'd need to contact them. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it might be what's known as a mirror site which copies Wikipedia content. If that is the case it'll eventually cache the current version of this one. Can someone confirm this though? This is Paul (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a straight mirror. You'll have to go and edit on that site. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

NeilN is correct, nothing to do with wikipedia, and it doesn't look like a mirror. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses - here we go again! Btw, is anybody going to respond to my previous Edit Request?MdeBohun (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

Nationality info is constantly being added to this page with no reference. If a reliable source can be found I am happy for it to be added but if this is no source we shouldn't allow it to be continually be put on the page. Can an admin please prevent this? (Lw1982 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

Her nationality

Looking for some consensus on her nationality. I've just restored this information after it was removed on the grounds it isn't sourced. As she was born in England (which we do have sourced) then her nationality is British, unless she states otherwise. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide the source that states she was born in England? (Lw1982 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC))