Talk:Christine Blasey Ford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Published works[edit]

She has extensive publications that include measurements of anxiety, facial expression, and biomonitoring.

She just barely got started with putting in one published work, but she has a ton. A list can be found here: Casprings (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Most professors who've been working more than a few years have been published multiple times. Not noteworthy, certainly not worth a Wikipedia entry, else we'd see every tenured prof in the world on Wikipedia.Clepsydrae (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
As a matter of style, we should be conservative with listing publications. Limit to books alone, imo. Far too many academic biographies tend to resemble CVs. We aren't here to tell the world about every paper and conference an academic publishes or attends. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, only books. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Google Scholar brings up a handful of journal titles with her name attached to them.--Artaxerxes 18:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Peer reviewed articles are actually more important then books.Casprings (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
What about other journal articles that were themselves the subject of secondary sources ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If you want to do this right you put them in by: 1. Citations by other articles. 2. Quality of journal. Casprings (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Casprings you can disagree all you want, but that simply means you don't know what you're talking about. Typically a book is required for tenure--but you might make up for that by a serious number of serious journal articles. In other words, books (meaning monographs) are MUCH more important. Articles, you can publish a couple of years. Books, no. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Drmies I am pretty sure getting published in American Journal of Political Science is a big fing deal for a political scientist for example. It doesn't take a book to produce a groundbreaking medical study. It takes an article in a good journal.Casprings (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't get it. Of course it's a big deal. But it's not as big a deal as publishing a monograph, and it's not so big a deal that it gets you tenure. And if something is groundbreaking, other scholars or the media will note it--and then it becomes worthwhile listing. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Sagecandor, common sense suggests that any article that has itself been the subject of discussion is worth being listed. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
There were some. They were all removed. Wholesale. Let's add those individual articles back. Sagecandor (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Sagecandor I call bullshit. Nothing in this list has secondary sourcing proving anything. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
How does a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal not meet this definition and explanation of "monograph", which incidentally mentions "novels" as an example of a "book" that is a "monograph": And where and for what degrees is getting a "book" published a "requirement" or very near a "requirement" for receiving tenure? Especially given that it's pretty easy these days to get a "book" published and has been for a long time. Finding someone to PAY the AUTHOR for the right to publish his or her book and "making money" doing so is an entirely different kettle of fish but getting a "book" published has always been as difficult as finding the "funding" to pay a "publisher" to print the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This is the kind of ignorance that mars such discussion. No one, no T&P committee, will ever consider a self-published book. And the last sentence makes no sense at all, and contradicts what was said earlier. Also, academic books aren't moneymakers, unless they're textbooks--but those aren't typically considered monographs. Difference between a journal article and a book? Pick up a book. Now pick up an article. There. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I would ask user:Drmies to revert and discuss.Casprings (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of entire list of selected Journal articles[edit]

User:Drmies insists on removing the entire list of selected Journal articles without discussion, much less consensus. He has edit warred to enforce his removal. This is inappropriate. I request discussion and consensus to restore that content. KalHolmann (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with KalHolmann. Sagecandor (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I concur with the above. He needs to stop edit waring.Casprings (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This is being discussed above. The removal was proper. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
For the record, User:Drmies's first comment at this talk page came just three minutes before he removed the entire list of selected Journal articles. His idea of consensus is to declare that "only books" can be included and proceed to make it so before anyone else can weigh in. KalHolmann (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove: we typically don'tMy preference is not to include journal articles under "Works" for academics. This is normally reserved for books. Dr Ford is notable enough so that we don't have to include them. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • "Dr Ford is notable enough so that we don't have to include them. K.e.coffman" -- please explain? Sagecandor (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I've seen extensive listings in articles on nn academics at AfD. I assume it was being done as a way to have them appear more notable, hence my comment. In any case, journal articles are typically not included on professors' pages. Ford co-authored several books and they are already listed. It's indiscriminate to include the articles too. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: I'd sincerely appreciate it if you were to direct me to a Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay that supports your saying—as you have done twice now—that we "typically" don't include journal articles on professors' pages. Mere repetition does not make it so. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a guideline. I've personally never included journal articles in pages on academics that I've created: User:K.e.coffman#Historians. My other exposure to WP:PROF articles comes from participating at AfD. I've on occasion removed them, such as here: [1], as the excessive listing was actually obscuring the notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Are you seriously suggesting that the short list we are discussing here is so excessive that it obscures the notability of the subject? Let's stick to the point, please. KalHolmann (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I am honestly not trying to be a prick.. but what the hell are you people talking about that we don't include journal articles. I just went to a random article of an academic Timur_Kuran#Main_publications I know. Clearly a crap ton of journal articles. Peer reviewed articles in a quality journal are notable.Casprings (talk)

*Keep. Agree with Casprings. This is common to have a list of journal articles in addition to books. It's not an exhaustive list by any means, and not too big. See also lists at Gerald Koocher and John C. Norcross. Sagecandor (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Remove Per K.e.coffman and Drmies. This is getting silly. PackMecEng (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Huh. Remove. I am not sure I know who Casprings is, but I know Sagecandor should know better: "This is common to have a list of journal articles in addition to books" is simply not true. The person here is notable as an academic and a public figure, but her work is all academic. We do not include lists of published articles for academics--I've edited hundreds if not thousands of academic biographies and written a few myself: we do not list articles for the simple reason that academics churn out articles every year and articles rarely get secondary coverage, unlike books, which (hopefully) are reviewed and talked about. Without secondary sourcing there is simply no need to list it unless, of course, you're writing someone's resume, which you should do on LinkedIn. I forgot who it was who said that articles are more important than books: that person clearly doesn't know how academia works, but anyone who does know knows that a monograph is worth tenure, and an article is not. Imagine listing articles for people who work in the sciences, people who typically churn out a half dozen (co-written) articles a year. It's crazy.

    Casprings, one more thing: if you're going to some "random" article, like Timur_Kuran#Main_publications, and you miss the note on the top that says "This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards", and it's been tagged like that since 2012, and the article was created via edits like this (from an SPA), someone who clearly has a conflict of interest, then you're not helping your case. Maybe you shouldn't a. look for a random article but for a good one and b. study what you're looking at before you post it. In the meantime I'll be cleaning up that resume as well. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep There is precedence of many academics bios, in which the sujects' resumes and bibliographies are similarly generous.Dogru144 (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning Remove - Wikipedia is not a CV. Academics often have dozens if not hundreds of publication credits, and by default we should not list them all. Except in extremely notable cases when a stand-alone list of works is merited, or by some other process of coming up with a "selected" bibliography without the use of OR (e.g. if specific works are covered in article prose), we shouldn't be turning articles into CVs. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Casprings and Sagecandor. Clear sense of who Blasey Ford is as a researcher, what she does as a researcher, how she thinks, etc. But what ought to be included is a URL that links a more COMPLETE LIST of her publications. This could be a published (online) CV (with bibliography) and/or a Faculty profile that lists publications or a ResearchGate or account (if we cannot find a better list). In addition, the phrase "widely published in her field" is used twice with references to someone else's saying as much. For such a claim for her research and academic productivity, one ought (IMO) to have a link to a CV (with bibliography) and/or some Faculty profile site - for documenting such a claim in THIS Wikipedia article. MaynardClark (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
GoogleScholar lists a very long list of publications by Dr. Christine Margaret Blasey Ford (going back to at least 1983).[1][2] However, her online profile at Stanford University, where she is an affiliate, not a professor, does not list any publications for her.[3][4][5] Although a recent Time Magazine article lists her as a Stanford University faculty member, that is not how Stanford lists her.[6] Her academic reputation may not be evident from anything Stanford publishes online because of the affiliate status (as would be evident for a regular faculty member). Stanford's Hoover Institution has a Libertarian podcast (19:35) that interviews Richard Epstein, who argues for the mistaken identity theory about the accusation.[7] MaynardClark (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove. Per above arguments. Academics do indeed churn out articles but they tend to be highly specialized of interest to other people in the field (and even then, sometimes very few of those). Hence the requirement that an article be highly notable (say, Einstein's papers on general and special relativity, but note mathematics articles are short in the extreme). The point about peer review is irrelevant as many academic books are collected articles, revised articles, articles that have been re-written together to form a single, coherent monograph, etc., and are thus essentially peer-reviewed anyway, and more to the point are the more mature, cogent, near-final form of a given body of work and representative of the researcher's sustained thought and achievement in the field. An academic book really is more than the sum of its parts, which were once articles. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my opinion there's a systemic problem in Wikipedia articles on borderline-notable academics, and when faced with a dearth of significant secondary sources about their subject, too many editors feel that nominally satisfying WP:SCHOLAR gives them carte blanche to essentially transcribe the CV or staff profile page of their subject. While to my knowledge there are no explicit guidelines on academic biographies (I've tried with little luck to initiate discussion here and here), it is not our job as editors to create a virtual showcase for the subject. Involved Wikipedians often have a disproportionate view of the importance of any given publication, or the publication record as a whole, overlooking the fact that publishing in and of itself is not remarkable for an academic. Even setting an arbitrary inclusion criteria (e.g. 5 most recent papers, or 10 most cited), while reducing the level of academia-cruft, still often begs the question "why should we include this?" and "who is the intended audience?" We should not necessarily look to other academic biographies on Wikipedia as examples: many are poorly written, "fan-centric", and over-reliant on primary sources, a problem which is inversely proportional to a subject's coverage in secondary literature. We should always aspire to create professional-quality articles—on par with what someone might expect to find in a non-crowd-sourced publication such as the Encyclopedia Britannica or Current Biography—not merely an article which satisfies our own pedantic interests. Professional biographies, obituaries, and blurbs for writers of all sorts (journalists, novelists, scientists, etc.) frequently omit run-of-the-mill publications, and emphasize books, films, and other larger works, recognizing that only a very small subset of readers will ever care about individual articles or papers, and the articles that do merit discussion will be covered in prose, not indiscriminate, arbitrary, or promotional lists. I'm not sure if all of Dr. Ford's papers should be removed (though I wouldn't object), but certainly all should not be included, and the question of how many to include, if any, is a matter of good taste, judgement, discretion, and common sense. The question to be asked about this and any other academic article is: does including (or omitting) lists of publications make the article any more or less useful for general readers? --Animalparty! (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The purpose is the same as with any author: let the users read more from the subject of the article to learn more. Criteria can be found by consensus on what publications to list, to keep them at a reasonable number. Blanket removal of articles as opposed to monographs does not serve the article well and is not a rigorous method. Some [2] secondary sources are also coming up, although they should be vetted. The Google Scholar profile was taken down and I did not see an ORCID list. --Nemo 10:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I will say it again, if you want to do this right you go by the number of times the article has been cited and limit to around ten articles. That is objective.Casprings (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment At this point it looks like there is consensus to remove the Journal articles section as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unless there is something new I will remove it this afternoon. PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I am seeing a consensus running the other way, but I am involved. Of course, you are too. I would suggest that this needs to be decided by a neutral RFC with a neutral closer.Casprings (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I count 7 for remove and 5 for keep. So how do you see it otherwise? PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I am confused. I think this is not a vote. That said, it would be best to write a neutral RFC and ping all the editors here. Let an outside editor close it before you remove sourced content.On the “vote”, it is now 7 to 6.Casprings (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There are no non-primary sources for the information. They are not notable and were added by a sock puppet of a user that was topic banned from these types of articles. That alone should be an easy remove. PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's standard to include a selection of published works, books and otherwise. SarahSV (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: The books would remain as notable. The journal articles though would be removed since they have no secondary coverage and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We generally do not just list out everything they have published. PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: A paper co-authored by Christine Blasey, published Aug. 29, 2018 in The American Journal of Psychiatry, was promptly republished by the prestigious Association of American Universities. Would this not qualify as secondary coverage of a journal article? KalHolmann (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"Standard" doesn't necessarily mean a good idea, just that other amateur Wikipedians want to do it, and haven't been checked by better judgement. This is not an article targeted to statisticians or psychologists, and I would wager that very few (if any) of the editors adding the articles have read them, understand the significance of them, or can justify why those (and not other) articles should be included. I extend this comment to the majority of academic articles, most of which will never enjoy the level of scrutiny as this one. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: there are sometimes disagreements about how many journal articles to list: there are minimalists and maximalists. But I can't see any reason to cite none, especially given the level of interest in her. You don't need secondary coverage; just list a few of the most cited. SarahSV (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There is disagreement about whether to list them at all. There is no good reason to list them. Published books is a different things: they are, typically, the kind of thing that get one tenure, and they are reviewed, so there is secondary sourcing. If one says to include them, without secondary sources, there is no good reason not to list them all. You could go by "most cited" but that begs the question of what metric, and what the cut-off would be, and whether every field should be judged along the same lines. And if we're listing articles, we might as well start listing all the other things we do these days--not just conference presentations, but also things like review articles (not reviews, review articles), encyclopedic entries, etc. And then, before you know it, you have a resume. At the very least a metric/rationale is being proposed here: "most cited" (which is more than we got from the original editors here), but as I said, that's not an easy measure either. How many of the most cited? Why that number? Etc. And I see others proposing links to whatever sites that list them all--well, typically academics have resumes/lists of publications on their own homepage or their faculty page. So that's not necessary either. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


Usage of surname[edit]

Sources such as NYT call her "Dr. Blasey", as did some senators during the hearing. The publication which appears to be her most recent carries her name as "Christine Blasey, PhD". --Nemo 08:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Dr. Ford does indeed use her maiden name professionally, as shown consistently in our BLP's Publications section. Accordingly, our Infobox parameter |other_names = Christine Blasey. Please note, however, that when she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee two days ago, Dr. Ford introduced herself using her full name. This can be seen and heard as she begins reading her prepared statement at 31:17 on the C-SPAN video counter. Moreover, the overwhelming preponderance of published sources relating to her newfound identity as a public figure use her full name, including her legal surname, Ford. KalHolmann (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, this means we should call her 'Blasey Ford', not 'Ford' or 'Blasey' in this wikipedia article. Laurier (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we have justification for shortening "Blasey Ford" to either "Blasey" or "Ford". Whenever identified by name throughout the article, "Blasey Ford" should be used, except in first sentence in lede, calling for "Christine Margaret Blasey Ford". Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly we should include Ford as part of her full name, Christine Margaret Blasey Ford. Virtually all Reliable Sources do. If the question is how to handle later uses in the article, where per WP style we would refer to the subject by their surname, we should follow the version of her surname that Reliable Sources use. A few commentators have referred to her as “Dr. Blasey Ford,” but I have never seen her use that formulation and I didn't find it in any major Reliable Sources. She publishes as "Christine Blasey" but that doesn't make it her primary name; many professional women publish under their maiden name and function socially under their husband's last name. In her case, in a quick survey I found that the vast majority of Reliable News Sources use "Ford" as their after-first-mention surname:

  • "Ford" was used as her surname by: Chicago Tribune, USA Today, The Atlantic, Huffington Post, TIME, People, Washington Post[3], CNN[4], etc. Clear consensus of RS.
  • The only departure from this norm I found was "Dr. Blasey", in the NY Times[5] (which uniquely among major publications insists on using Mr, Ms., Dr., etc. with surnames).

Conclusion: We currently use “Ford” as her after-first-mention name, and per Reliable Source usage we should continue to do so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Either is fine ("Ford" of "Blasey Ford): that's what preponderance of the sources uses, while "Blasey Ford" may be potentially confusing to readers if it may be unclear whether that's a first name or part of the surname. "Ford" is more straightforward. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Changed to either; recent usage that I see seems to have used "Blasey Ford". Not a big deal either way. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the Sept. 27 hearing, however, Blasey Ford admitted to extensive domestic and international air travel from her home in California."[6] It is more respectful in this particular biography to refer to the subject as Blasey Ford. Many good quality sources routinely refer to her as Blasey Ford. They are both surnames. We are looking for the surname to refer to her. Blasey Ford is entirely acceptable for that purpose. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ford per MelanieN. ―Mandruss  18:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The White House apparently feeling that that is sufficient in light of this new detailed accusations coming from Blasey Ford. And specifically, the question of this polygraph test that was administered in August by a former FBI agent, which according to Blasey Ford she passed."[7] (Emphasis added by me.) Based on the fact that good quality sources use "Blasey Ford" there would be nothing inappropriate about our following suit.
  • "As the day went on, that constellation of publications trumpeted Blasey Ford’s credibility—both The Atlantic and the Times pointed to Blasey Ford’s scientific background as being a particular asset to her testimony—and highlighted how painful the account was for Blasey Ford as well."[8]
  • "Remember how Blasey Ford asked for caffeine and was later seen swinging a large bottle of Coke?"[9]
  • "Republicans announced Monday they will bring both Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh to Capitol Hill next week to testify."[10]
  • "Kirsten Leimroth, whose daughters are also part of the Junior Lifeguard program, was with Blasey Ford and Gensheimer that day at the beachside restaurant when Blasey Ford worried about her name being revealed."[11]
  • "The suggestion that Blasey Ford would make it up as a political ploy is 'preposterous,' Leimroth said."[12]
  • "Worse, Rubio also said he refuses to 'give credence' to Blasey Ford."[13]
  • "In her testimony Thursday, Blasey Ford described the legacy of her experience in her own life."[14]
  • "This logic may seem not to apply to what allegedly happened between Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford."[15]
  • "To some, Kavanaugh’s insistence that he has 'never done anything like what the accuser describes—to her or anyone,' as he said in response to Blasey Ford’s allegation, seems, at best, politically imprudent."[16]
  • "As a result, we’ve been loath to hold men of any age accountable—until recently. As Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford prepared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, comedian Bill Cosby was sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison for drugging and assaulting Andrea Constand in 2004."[17]
  • The bottom line is that if you want to treat the subject of this biography with full respect you use her full surname. Many more sources can be found that do not presume to know how to shorten someone's surname. We do not know that "Blasey" or "Ford" are acceptable substitutes for her actual surname therefore we should simply use her actual full surname. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, well, let’s see. I found “Ford” to be the standard at Washington Post, CNN (in published news reports), TIME, People, USA Today, Huffington Post, The Atlantic, and the Chicago Tribune. You found Blasey Ford in a CNN oral transcript, so apparently they didn’t have a uniform rule at CNN. You also found Blasey Ford used in Bloomberg, the Mercury News, the Miami New Times, Wired, The Forward, and World Tribune whatever that is. I would say this is not a list of the top-ranked national sources compared to the ones which used “Ford”. BTW you talk about treating her with “full respect” by using her “full surname”. I would certainly agree, if she had ever publicly used that as her full surname. As far as I know she has never called herself by any surname, only publishing under Blasey and introducing herself by her full name. In that full name we have no way of knowing if she is using her maiden name as a middle name as many women do (Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Alison Lundergan Grimes), or if she actually uses both names as her surname (can’t think of a good example right now). --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW you talk about treating her with “full respect” by using her “full surname”. I would certainly agree, if she had ever publicly used that as her full surname. - I would disagree regardless, as a "full respect" argument has no basis in Wikipedia policy. I agree with the rest of your reasoning but declined to spend my time spelling it out for an editor who should know better. You're a better man than I. ―Mandruss  01:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I actually think it is the basis of all policy to treat people with respect, Mandruss. We are not a tabloid. Of course we aim to treat the subjects of our biographies with respect. Breitbart News for instance writes "The final Senate report from Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor who interviewed Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford, questions Blasey Ford’s 'struggle to recall important recent events' such as whether she took her polygraph test the same day as her grandmother’s funeral. Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday, Blasey Ford — the California professor who brought forth an allegation of teenage sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee — said she did not know whether her polygraph examination less than two months ago occurred on the same day her grandmother was buried. This discrepancy is listed among nine categories of strikes against Blasey Ford’s testimony which led Mitchell to conclude her account did not meet the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard." Unfortunately I cannot link to the source. Or consider that the Chicago Sun-Times writes "The GOP is bringing in a female prosecutor from Arizona, Rachel Mitchell, to question Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh. That doesn’t say much about the advancement of women in the party, but at least Blasey Ford probably will be treated better than Hill."[18] Bus stop (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The concept of respect is far too subjective and vague to be useful in content decisions; in my opinion that's one of the reasons you don't find it in policy. If you disagree, I'll watch for a discussion at WP:VPP about the proper unwritten role, if any, of respect in Wikipedia content. Please ask specifically whether that argument has a place in a content decision. But I won't be debating the point further here, and my !vote stands unless you can produce substantially more reliable sources than those whose use only "Ford". ―Mandruss  03:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is another one. Vox (website) writes "'Can we picture this man doing this?' asked Dan McLaughlin, also in National Review. 'If we were talking about an allegation against a man known to be a sexual predator or to have had the low sexual morals to treat women as disposable sex objects — a man such as Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump, or Ted Kennedy — we might put more stock in Blasey Ford’s account.'"[19]
And another one. The Daily Beast writes "The letter appeared to be a reversal from Monday, when Blasey Ford’s attorney Debra Katz said her client was 'willing to do whatever it takes to get her story forth,' including testifying publicly. Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of pinning her down and groping her during a high school party decades ago, an allegation he has strenuously denied."[20]
Psychology Today writes "Has Blasey Ford created a false memory of sexual assault?"[21]
CNN writes "In late August, DeVarney tells CNN that she reached out to Blasey Ford to get together. It was in this conversation that DeVarney says Blasey Ford confided in her for the first time about being 'sexually assaulted in high school,' without sharing Brett Kavanaugh’s name or other details about who he was. Blasey Ford told her about the letter she had sent to her congresswoman."[22]
A poll taken by ABC News posed all questions using the "Blasey Ford" formulation. For instance "Which do you think is true? Blasey Ford came forward on her own and is telling the truth? Blasey Ford was pressured by others to come forward, but is telling the truth? Or Blasey Ford was paid by others to come forward with a made-up story that is false?"[23] Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN—why do you say that in the cases of Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Alison Lundergan Grimes that "Huckabee" and "Lundergan" are functionally "middle names"? Correct me if I am misrepresenting what you said. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean that they do not use "Huckabee Sanders" or "Lundergan Grimes" as their surname. In our article about Sanders, we refer to her as "Sanders". In our article about Grimes, we refer to her as "Grimes". Other examples: Ruth Bader Ginsberg ("Ginsberg"), Hillary Rodham Clinton ("Clinton"). Don't pretend you are unfamiliar with this practice. --MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN—a level of formality should be expected in the case of the subject of this article. We don't know her. She is an otherwise un-notable person. We can refer to "Sanders" or "Grimes" (or "Ginsberg" or "Clinton") because they are "household names". They are genuine public figures. In the case of Blasey Ford we acknowledge unfamiliarity by "covering all bases". We really don't know if "Blasey" or "Ford" is the right term despite all the references you or I can bring in the thread above. Since we don't want to make a mistake with this otherwise private individual we should opt for using the entire surname which is "Blasey Ford". Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing "formal" about referring to a person by a made-up surname that we have never heard them use. The reason we refer to Sanders and Ginsberg and Clinton in that way is not because they are household names; it is because that is their chosen surname, and per Wikipedia style we refer to people by their surname after first mention. This is how we handle every BLP at this encyclopedia, whether they are a household name or relatively obscure. The only question at issue here is, what is her surname? Although you have been diligently citing (sometimes repetitive) examples here of sources that have decided to refer to her as "Blasey Ford", there are even stronger (i.e. more reliable) publications that are calling her "Ford". Look, we are talking in circles here. This question will be decided by consensus, not by volume of text provided or number of times we post. At this point I see one person in favor of Blasey, two in favor of Blasey Ford, and four in favor of Ford. It is Ford in the article right now, and I am not seeing consensus to change it. --MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Use "Ford": That's our common practice here, and plenty of RS back this up. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN—is her name "Christine Ford"? No. It is "Christine Blasey Ford". You are saying BTW you talk about treating her with "full respect" by using her "full surname". I would certainly agree, if she had ever publicly used that as her full surname. As far as I know she has never called herself by any surname, only publishing under Blasey and introducing herself by her full name but we have all the indication we could need to compel us address her by her full surname. Do all women retain their maiden name? No. The choice is evident in her name that she does not wish to be relegated to a one-surname individual in which that one surname is that of her husband. I think there is an underlying feminist principle here. (I happen to be male but this is how I see it.) What I am seeing is that we are writing an article about what is otherwise a private individual. This article was only initiated 30 days ago. But anyone with any sensitivity can see that we are writing about an individual who has chosen to include her maiden name along with that of her husband's surname. This is not a "middle name" as you have suggested in an earlier post. ("we have no way of knowing if she is using her maiden name as a middle name as many women do") You seem to be asking for "public use" of both surnames. It is right there in her name. She has chosen not to subsume her identity into that of her husband. The nomenclature in her name indicates this. This is a political choice and this is a feminist choice. We should respect that. Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.(Got carried away.) You must not know any women. I know dozens, including my own mother, who use their maiden name as a middle name. Their full name is "First Maiden Last". Their surname is "Last". I don't know anyone who uses as their surname "Maiden Last". If Sally Ann Brown marries John Smith, she will often take the name Sally Brown Smith, with Smith as her last name. Her signature may be something like Sally B. Smith. Anyhow, enough of this. The tally is now five in favor of Ford, two for Blasey Ford, one for Blasey. You can continue trying to convince anyone else, but consensus for "Ford" is clear and I do not intend to waste any more time on this. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN—you are blurring the distinction between a middle name deriving from other factors and a "middle" name deriving from a very specific factor—namely the surname of one's family of birth. "Ann", to use your example, is a middle name deriving from a multitude of possible places. "Ann" could be the name of a favorite aunt, or "Ann" could just be what is considered a beautiful name, or "Ann" could be the name of a favorite poet. But "Brown", to again use your example, derives from one and only one specific factor—the surname of one's family of birth. You are entitled to call "Brown" a "middle name" because indeed it is situated in the middle of, to use your example, "Sally Brown Smith". But it is pointless to have this conversation unless we distinguish between the different sorts of situations in which a name is situated in the middle of a three-part name. Feel free not to "waste any more time on this" but we can see that many good quality sources recognize the significance of a woman's choice to retain her maiden name. And those sources respect that by including what I would term the two parts of her surname in references to her. I can't account for what other good quality sources do in truncating her name to merely "Ford" but my personal opinion is that it shows a certain level of insensitivity. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN is right, and you're engaging in OR which is affected by local customs, family traditions, country specific variations within English speaking countries (and this applies to many other countries), etc. My own mother kept her maiden name as her middle name, but it only appeared in writing, never in speech. The same with my wife. Their maiden names are only used in legally binding signatures which require the full name. When introducing themselves or referring to themselves they only use(d) (my mother is dead...) their first and last (married) names. The only way to know if Ford preferred to use a double last name (often hyphenated in some countries) would be to hear how she introduced herself. Did she say "I'm Christine Ford" or "I'm Christine Blasey Ford"? Did she do one or the other EVERY SINGLE TIME? If there was consistency, then we'd have something to go by, but do we even know that? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer—let us assume for a moment that I am engaging in original research, as you charge. Then how do you explain the many good quality sources that refer to the subject as "Blasey Ford"? What could possibly motivate those good quality sources to use the reference "Blasey Ford"?
An additional source: Glamour (magazine), a women's magazine published by Condé Nast Publications, writes "I’m sure he’d like some takebacks, just as I’m sure he doesn’t ever want his daughters to feel as terrified as Blasey Ford says she was that night."[24] Why would this source choose to refer to the subject of our article as "Blasey Ford"?
An additional source: writes "But Blasey Ford wouldn't be the last. As the hearing is set to start, Kavanaugh faces five allegations, including two from women who claim their encounters with President Donald Trump's pick for the high court happened when they were high school or college students."[25]
An additional source: Paste (magazine) writes "Blasey Ford’s lawyers had each of her corroborators swear and sign accounts in which Blasey Ford opened up to them about Kavanaugh’s assault on her. Blasey Ford’s accusation states that Kavanaugh assaulted her while the two were in high school, attempting to pull off her clothing and trap her in a bedroom."[26]
Additional source: NPR writes "But Blasey Ford declined to go public until this weekend, when she shared the details of the allegation with The Washington Post."[27]
At the McClatchyDC bureau of The McClatchy Company we read "Feinstein has maintained she was trying to protect Blasey Ford, who told the California senator at the time she did not want her identity to be made public" and "Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of groping her and attempting to take off her clothes while he was drunk and they were both in high school" and "Other accusers have come forward since Blasey Ford, with one saying Kavanaugh was involved with a group that drugged and gang raped women in high school" and "Feinstein asked Blasey Ford to tell her how she knew her attacker back then was Kavanaugh and not another boy, as some Republicans have suggested. The same way that I’m sure that I’m talking to you right now,' Blasey Ford replied, saying there was 'absolutely not' a chance that this was a case of mistaken identity."[28]
Forbes writes"Since Blasey Ford went public with her accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, her lawyers report that she and her family have been forced to move out of their home, that her email account has been hacked, and that she faces continuing harassment...Professor Blasey Ford has been understandably reluctant to testify until the FBI has conducted an investigation...If Professor Blasey Ford does testify, legal experts on gender and domestic violence suggest that she should not be alone...Moreover, including other testimony on the trauma of sexual abuse could provide an understanding of Blasey Ford’s reluctance to come forward and explain her memory of the incident more than 35 years later...Blasey Ford is, notably, not the first woman to be in such a situation...Coming forward is risky, and Professor Jordan counsels that Blasey Ford should stick to the facts she remembers."[29]
The National Review writes "If we accept every word of Professor Blasey Ford's allegations, we are not talking about horseplay gone bad or even an inappropriate grope at a drunk-teens party, better left to the mists of youth after the passage of time. Blasey Ford now claims that Kavanaugh, with the assistance of a co-conspirator, attempted to forcibly rape her...If you are skeptical of Blasey Ford's charge, as I am, it may strike you that she has very precisely chosen an allegation serious enough to warrant those consequences, complete with the headline-grabbing line, 'I thought he might inadvertently kill me'."[30] These quotes are a mere fraction of the instances in this National Review article referring to her as Blasey Ford.
The Hill (newspaper) writes "This does not mean that we should take it as gospel that Blasey Ford, currently a college professor in California, was assaulted by Kavanaugh...Had he not been stumbling drunk, Professor Blasey Ford believes Kavanaugh would have raped her...Any person who is even remotely capable of committing an act like what Professor Blasey Ford describes is not fit to be a Supreme Court justice...It is also worth remembering that Professor Blasey Ford even took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent."[31]
American Constitution Society writes "Professor Blasey Ford has made a serious accusation against Brett Kavanaugh and she deserves to have her assertions investigated in a timely and impartial manner by unbiased, trained law enforcement personnel. It would be the height of irresponsibility for the Senate to proceed with hearings on these accusations without allowing law enforcement agencies to first do their job and provide Senators with a professional accounting of the incident Professor Blasey Ford describes. Kavanaugh’s confirmation process has already been marred by a rushed calendar and a refusal to allow complete access to his records. The fact that President Trump and a handful of Senators seem unwilling to let law enforcement look into Professor Blasey Ford’s allegations should further concern to anyone who claims to hold the rule of law in high regard."[32] Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Over the past three days, User:Bus stop has made 40 edits to this section Usage of surname for a net gain of 18,138 bytes, which is 35% the size of our Christine Blasey Ford BLP. Since commenting on September 29, I haven't read any of these contributions, but this sure must be an important topic! I applaud the indefatigable Bus stop for his fanatical devotion. KalHolmann (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I am hardly indefatigable. I am "indolent, lackadaisical, laggard, lazy, listless, shiftless, slothful, sluggish, apathetic, casual, desultory, languid, and spiritless."[33] Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Good article nomination[edit]

On Sept. 30, User:Casprings nominated Christine Blasey Ford to be added to Wikipedia's list of good articles under the subtopic Mathematics and mathematicians. I find this inexplicable. Not once in our BLP does the word mathematics or any of its variants appear. I note that there is a separate subtopic for Culture, sociology and psychology, which includes psychology and psychologists. I must be missing something here. Since when is Dr. Ford a mathematician and not a psychologist? KalHolmann (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

A GA nomination is rather silly at this point with how much it is changing recently as well. The article needs to be stable first. PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

1. Statistical modeling is math, the last time I checked. That is what she is known for. 2. GA only requires that the article is free from edit warring. I see no ongoing edit wars.Casprings (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ha, well good luck with that. PackMecEng (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
No, he's right! Now I understand. Of course! That's why, when she introduced herself last Thursday to Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she said: "My name is Christine Blasey Ford. I am a Professor of Psychology—I mean, mathematics—at Palo Alto University and a Research Psychologist—I mean, mathematician—at the Stanford University School of Medicine." Good catch! KalHolmann (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Sarcasm is sometimes not so good.[34] PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I can see this article fitting in either nomination category...from the article, she is a professor of psychology who "specializes in designing statistical models for research projects." She also worked as a director of biostatistics. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It should be placed in the most broadly applicable category, not ones that *technically* apply. Researchers in pretty much every field of science, from ecologists and botanists to geologists and chemists, also use statistics in their research, and some are statistical wizards of their subfields, but that needn't overshadow their primary, general occupation. I also think this GA nom was premature for such an unfolding, developing subject. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the results of her testimony, she wants to go back into private life. She isn’t giving interviews, etc. My feeling is that she is historically notable and it is best to capture the best possiable article now. I would guess that this article won’t change much if she does return to a private life, besides for updates on her research, etc. I get the feeling she isn’t staying about for her 15 min of fame.Casprings (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it comes down to is she a psychologist that does mathematics or a mathematician that does psychology? That should easily define what it should be under. Also is there any reason to doubt this article will continue to be updated with breaking news? Especially with the senate stuff not done as well as the FBI investigation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Casprings, so long as the article has the "current event" tag on it, it is not ready for GA. No templated article is. Further, it is not practical to submit an article that is still undergoing significant changes, even absent edit warring or general disputes, because it isn't stable enough for a review: no reviewer is going to appreciate checking a section for the various GA criteria only to discover that significant edits have been made to the just-checked section while the review is still ongoing. The article is barely twelve days old, and still receiving frequent edits (nineteen so far today); far better to withdraw the nomination until the article has truly stabilized. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Casprings: If consensus were to develop among involved editors that your nomination is premature, would you be willing to withdraw it? I'm not suggesting we have such consensus. Counting this comment of mine, four involved editors have today noted prematurity: @PackMecEng:, @Animalparty: and @BlueMoonset:. A fifth, uninvolved editor, @Feminist: today offered similar advice on your talk page.

Only one involved editor, besides you, has supported your nomination: @Thsmi002:.

I understand your pride of authorship in having created Christine Blasey Ford—for which I thanked you on Sept. 19, two days after you launched it.

However, as its creator, you may not be the ideal editor to nominate it for Good Article status. And the way in which you did so is also questionable. Instead of proposing the idea on this talk page for other editors to discuss, you posted it as a fait accompli. At the very least, a discussion might have dissuaded you from nominating this BLP in the wrong category (mathematics).

In any case, if we could now rely on your willingness to accede to consensus, perhaps a clear-cut majority can emerge. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with the nomination being withdrawn or placed on hold until a more stable version occurs. In my previous comment, I was mentioning that I can understand/see how it could be nominated in either category. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It's withdrawn. And for the record, you could use either cat. If you look at what she wrote her book about, it is research design and stats.Casprings (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Casprings: I suggest that you withdraw the GA nomination once again, because there's an ongoing RfC. wumbolo ^^^ 18:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This is becoming disruptive. On 30 September 2018, Casprings nominated Christine Blasey Ford for Good Article status. The next day, following objections by other involved editors, Casprings withdrew the nomination. Within 24 hours, he posted an RfC on the question, "Should the entire list of journal articles be removed?" Now, while the RfC remains open and having attracted dozens of comments without clear consensus, Casprings reposts the same GA nominee template, not even bothering to change the time/date parameter from 01:25, 30 September 2018. Obviously, removal of the entire list of journal articles would significantly change this article, and if that were to happen during the review process, uninvolved editors who have by then commented would be placed in a tenuous and embarrassing position. I urge Casprings to (a) withdraw his untimely re-nomination; and (b) permanently recuse himself from future GA nominations of this article. KalHolmann (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

1. How is this disruptive to the article in any practical way? I think this article is a good example of why one should not wait to create articles that have long term importance. If you hit it while the iron is hot, really good articles can develop quickly. While I don’t have the time to edit as much as others, I would like to work with a GA reviewer and, eventually, an FA reviewer to bring up the quality of the article. Frankly I think you might be a little bit dramatic on the subject, and I won’t recuse myself. 2. As to the RFC, I think consensus is pretty clear now, even if I am on the other side. The article needs one change.. hitting the delete button. That said, I will withdraw it until that closes. 3. On the time stamp... what does this hurt and why should I care? Casprings (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Research psychologist?[edit]

The article incorrectly identifies Dr. Ford as a psychologist. Please cross check your footnote 9. The Stanford site has been updated (apparently this week) and no longer refers to her as a psychologist. In addition to the linked page update, here is a link to the findings of a researcher who confirmed she is not licensed as a psychologist and therefore cannot identify herself as a psychologist, and in fact perjured herself and violated law at the outset of her Senate testimony with her statement, “My name is Christine Blasey Ford. I am a Professor of Psychology at Palo Alto University and a Research Psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.” (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done. Footnote 9 references a single clause stating that Dr. Ford has worked as "a professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine Collaborative Clinical Psychology Program." Your alternate source disputes her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee identifying herself as "a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine." Those are two different claims. Your source does not dispute that she has worked as a professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine. KalHolmann (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Note also, that is the official website of noted instigator Milo Yiannopoulos. Hardly a reliable source for a BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the reference being referred to is number 8, not 9. That appears to be the source mentioned in the Dangerous piece. Unusually, we are forcing that reference to an archived version (deadurl=yes) despite the fact that the original URL—which no longer calls her a "research psychologist"—is not dead. I don't doubt the motive, but it fits neatly with the conspiracy-theory narrative brought by Dangerous. I would prefer to find a way to avoid that.
IF Ford is in fact unlicensed, I think Dangerous has a point, up until they start calling Ford a perjurer subject to prison time and claiming a cover-up conspiracy. I also think the Dangerous piece is not sufficient sourcing for a change, no matter what we think about the situation. Their search of the state-run licensing database is hardly definitive as to her licensing or lack thereof. ―Mandruss  12:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I concur that reference 9's inclusion of an archive-url parameter was unnecessary and confusing, and thank you for pointing it out. Accordingly, I have removed that portion of the citation. However, you are mistaken that the original URL no longer calls her a "research psychologist." The second paragraph therein reports that Ford has been "…a research psychologist for Stanford's Department of Psychiatry." KalHolmann (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: Again: I think the reference being referred to is number 8, not 9. I was referring to the Stanford source. I saw nothing confusing about the reference you changed. It was a live source (deadurl=no) with an archive backup in case it dies in the future, which is routine. ―Mandruss  16:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Sorry! I misunderstood and have reverted my edit. Thanks for following up, and I appreciate your patience. As for reference 8, I have now swapped the url parameter with the archive-url parameter, and removed the latter. Please double-check this for me. Surely we don't need to cite the current URL in order to demonstrate that historically Stanford profiled Dr. Ford as a "research psychologist." KalHolmann (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: This is even worse, in my view. Now, instead of favoring a years-old version of the source while making both versions easily accessible to readers, we're omitting access to the current version, appearing to try to hide the fact that it contradicts the years-old version! Your "historically referred to" is another man's correction, and the latter is the argument being made at Dangerous.
Look, clearly we're going with what the vast majority of reliable sources say, as we should per Wikipedia policy. So why cite Stanford at all? Just cite some sources representing that vast majority, and I'd cite three highest-quality ones to counter the argument made at Dangerous. ―Mandruss  17:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: We don't need three WP:RS. Please point me to one that supports our saying, "During her academic career, Ford has worked as a research psychologist for Stanford University's Department of Psychiatry." If you share the URL, I'll gladly turn into a citation and replace the existing Stanford reference. KalHolmann (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: How about two? Association of American Universities and USA Today. The former has the advantage of not being connected to Kavanaughgate. ―Mandruss  17:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Sorry, I'm back again with another question. Your linked article at Association of American Universities turns out to be a republication of a press release by Kimber Price, science-writing intern for Stanford School of Medicine's Office of Communication & Public Affairs. Is there some reason you recommend linking to a republication rather than to the original? KalHolmann (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: I didn't notice it was a reprint, but I don't think it hurts to have AAU's involvement in it. One might argue that it helps a wee bit. You could source it to Stanford with |url= AAU and |via= AAU. ―Mandruss  17:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: As you suggested, I changed the reference from Stanford CAP to USA Today. However, I oppose also citing the Stanford press release, since the whole point of our discussion has been to avoid using Stanford as a source to allay this bone of contention. Please, let's wait for additional feedback from editors before citing Stanford here, even by way of the prestigious Association of American Universities. KalHolmann (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: I don't know about yours, but my point was to avoid the Stanford source that contradicts the vast majority of RS. I don't see why we should avoid a Stanford source that agrees with said vast majority. In fact, citing that one undermines the assertion that Stanford no longer calls Ford a research psychologist, and that's a Good Thing. Here is my suggested citation:
Price, Kimber (August 28, 2018). "Ketamine's Antidepressive Effects Tied To Opioid System In Brain". Stanford University School of Medicine. Retrieved October 1, 2018 – via Association of American Universities.Mandruss  18:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I revised the lead to eliminate duplicate wording. I disagree with your proposed citation of Stanford's press release. Please, let's wait for other editors to weigh in. For the time being, citing USA Today ought to suffice. Thanks in any event for all your help with this. KalHolmann (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This "license" charge is a nothingburger. Licensure is necessary to see and/or treat patients. CLINICAL psychologists need a license because they see and treat patients. RESEARCH psychologists who do not see and treat patients do not need to be licensed. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Your input would break a 12-day impasse in the following subsection. ―Mandruss  04:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The current issue[edit]

To clarify, the BLP now includes a single instance of "research psychologist"—in the lead's first sentence. The reference in question is currently numbered [7]. The issue under discussion is whether that single reference suffices or if a new, supplemental citation should be added as suggested by Mandruss:
Price, Kimber (August 28, 2018). "Ketamine's Antidepressive Effects Tied To Opioid System In Brain". Stanford University School of Medicine. Retrieved October 1, 2018 – via Association of American Universities.

  • Oppose. Citing USA Today is uncontroversial because it is a long-established WP:RS and because it describes Ford as "a professor and research psychologist…." (Emphasis added.) The proposed reference to a Stanford press release, even via Association of American Universities, will merely provoke those who claim that Stanford and Ford are in cahoots to avoid the licensing question debunked yesterday by but that is still very much swirling through social media. Why suck Wikipedia needlessly into that murky maelstrom? KalHolmann (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1. In my view one citation is not enough to protect controversial content. Whether we feel something should be controversial is immaterial; what matters is that it is. For evidence that this content is controversial, see this edit request and the Dangerous piece that inspired it. What are the odds this will be the last we hear of this? We don't need to address the controversy in prose, but we should counter it with more than a single citation. 2. The USA Today article is connected to Kavanaughgate, the AAU one is not. Thus the latter can't be suspected of being politically motivated vis-a-vis the Kav nomination, or more generally a part of the vast liberal MSM conspiracy. 3. The AAU article originated at Stanford as an Aug 2018 press release (as indicated in the citation), so it serves as a counter to the claim that Stanford "corrected its error" in calling Ford a research psychologist. ―Mandruss  19:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't oppose adding a second reference, but IMO it is unnecessary. For what - to respond to a totally phony "controversy" from a known promoter of conspiracies? To make it clear: one does not need a license to be a research psychologist. Licenses are required for CLINICAL psychologists - those who treat patients. Plenty of people work in the field of psychology as researchers or teachers; they do not need a license, just sufficient qualifications in the field to satisfy their employer. She is a research psychologist; that is not in doubt; we can say that as often as we like in the article, having established it once via reference. --MelanieN (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    Again: Whether we feel something should be controversial is immaterial; what matters is that it is. We would include a second cite to help prevent future need for time-consuming discussion about licensing, etc., which so far is original research anyway. As I've indicated, nobody is suggesting content about the controversy, and this is the first time in 5 years I've seen objection to two citations for any content. WP:CITEKILL it is not. ―Mandruss  06:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Subsection about Ford and Me Too[edit]

After seeing several articles [35][36][37] discuss Ford's testimony and its impacts for the Me Too movement, I am wondering if a subsection should be written about it either here or on the Me Too page or possibly both. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a biography. If she never mentioned the movement, and she had the opportunity, then probably no. wumbolo ^^^ 11:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This article suggests that Ford posted a #Me Too status about an assault. [38]. Regardless, the societal impacts of the testimony seem worthy of inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia. Although it is important to balance WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed a See also link to the Me Too movement from the nomination article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The four sources linked above in this section do not substantiate Christine Blasey Ford's purposeful involvement in the Me Too movement. CNN headlined, "Ford finds herself at the center of America's #MeToo reckoning," and captioned a video, "MeToo founder to Ford: We stand with you." Haaretz headlined an analysis by a commentator/columnist, "Ford's Testimony Is a Historic Achievement for the #MeToo Movement." The analyst opined, "Ford made history also thanks to the #MeToo and Time's Up movements, which are trying to put an end to the silence that surrounds sexual harassment and assault." A political correspondent's story for Guardian US was headlined, "Ford offers powerful testimony in the #MeToo era." It reported, "Around the Capitol, demonstrators wearing pins that said 'I believe Dr Christine Blasey Ford' and '#MeToo' wept openly as they huddled over phones to watch a livestream of the hearing." It went on, "Kavanaugh's nomination has inflamed a deep cultural divide in today's #MeToo era of reckoning on sexual assault and harassment. Democrats have embraced the #MeToo movement and see it as a galvanizing force at the midterm elections this November, which are seen as a referendum on Trump." The Mercury News related that "#MeToo survivors and advocates have called her a hero for stepping into the white-hot spotlight and attaching her name, face and reputation to her story. Rebecca White, one of Blasey Ford's neighbors and a good friend … said that Blasey Ford had told her about the alleged assault—without naming Kavanaugh—in late 2017 during the height of the #MeToo movement and long before Kavanaugh was a Supreme Court nominee."

All this reminds me that correlation does not imply causation. Merely because Ford's allegations coincided with #MeToo in no way ties her to said campaign. I think it's revealing that Wikipedia's Me Too movement page does not once mention Christine Blasey Ford. Accordingly, I have again removed a link to that page from See Also, which had evidently snuck back in following @Wumbolo:'s previous removal on 2 October 2018. I believe his edit summary applies just as much now as it did then: "connection not clear, and even if it becomes clear, it is better served in prose." KalHolmann (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC on removal of Journal Articles[edit]

Should the entire list of journal articles be removed per [39]? Casprings (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC) @Clepsydrae, Animalparty, Artaxerxes, Drmies, KalHolmann, PackMecEng, K.e.coffman, Dogru144, Rhododendrites, MaynardClark, ZarhanFastfire, Nemo bis, and SlimVirgin:


  • Keep as OP. One, this is a small sample of her journal articles and mainly include articles in which she is the main author. Second, journal articles in a peer reviewed journal can and are notable. We should find a sample of the most important journal articles by citation and include them.Casprings (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove. We are not a database for resumes. Journal articles are regularly churned out by academics; it's what we do. They are rarely reviewed like books are and thus only rarely develop independent "noteworthiness". Applying some metric like "the most cited journals" to include in a biography is fraught with complications. And once we start listing those, we might as well start listing a host of other things. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Are the specific papers relevant to her notability? More so than her other non-mentioned papers? I’d say no. I also agree with Drmies points. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 04:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Wikipedia isn't a bibliography service. R2 (bleep) 08:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Two out of four featured articles under the Philosophy and psychology section include a list of selected articles. As Ford has authored only a handful of books, listing these articles isn't a bad idea. wumbolo ^^^ 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) Currently there are nine articles. This RfC concerns removal of six. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I believe we should keep some of these articles but not necessarily nine or six. Maybe just four, based upon the notability of the articles. But no they should not be eliminated completely. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't see any reason to remove them, especially given the level of interest in her work. If there's consensus that there are too many (there are currently nine), pick half a dozen of the most cited, according to Google Scholar. SarahSV (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove section per WP:NOTCV. Normally we don't want lists of journal articles for an academic unless secondary sources outlining the BLP aspect of the person point out specific seminal work. Even then, it's better to have in-text descriptions instead according to the secondary sources. Simply getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is far from being a significant noteworthiness metric of an academic's work, and we have WP:MEDRS/WP:SCIRS that outline why for those not familiar. This should be a rather standard removal of an unneeded section, so I don't see any reason to let it creep in to this article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It's pretty standard to include a bibliography of some published works on articles for academics and authors, as long as it isn't too long, so while I am sympathetic and somewhat agree that this tends to add resume-like aspects to certain articles, MEDRS is a policy about whether a particular use of a source is reliable. If we were going to remove this bibliography it would have to be discussed at MOS or Village Pump so the community consensus would apply to all articles, not only this one. As it stands, I don't see any reason to deviate from the usual practice (this includes what passes ISNOT at AfD and AfC). Seraphim System (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    • User:Seraphim System, that's not true and you know it. Editors like me have been removing these resume-style sections for years. You can't pretend there is a current consensus to include lists of articles: there isn't. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: I have never seen you at AfC and only occasionally at AfD, I'm not active at AfC all the time so maybe we've had different experiences at different times. Please do not tell me what I "know" - it comes awfully close to an accusation that I am lying. Editors like you can maybe get away with doing that because you have been editing a lot time but it's not common practice and there's no policy justification for it. I think DGG's position explained below on ISNOT is closer to what I'm familiar with from AfC. Seraphim System (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have struck my above keep vote. Subsequent comments by PackMecEng and E. M. Gregory have made relevant arguments about the notability and impact of these particular articles. I don't have time to follow up on these arguments further at this time, but I would support the inclusion of journal articles that meet our standards for inclusion. Seraphim System (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep some selected or representative works. Selection of which to include is an editorial decision; secondary coverage of the articles themselves is not a requirement. VQuakr (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • VQuakr, nothing is "required" here, but whose editorial decision, and based on what? There isn't a single word on this talk page dedicated to her academic career, besides a few generalities in "NPR says, "Widely published in her field"" and a brief note about which discipline in the section with the abortive GA nomination. I have seen no one discuss, intelligently and with knowledge of academia in general and her discipline(s) in specific, what her academic strengths are, or which of her articles should be mentioned (and which left out). In other words, editorial discretion for this particular point is not to be found among this cadre. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • We need not "discuss, intelligently and with knowledge of academia in general and her discipline(s) in specific, what her academic strengths are". We are compiling material relevant to a particular article. She is noted for her intellectual accomplishments. We as editors are not tasked with evaluating those accomplishments. We are only compiling relevant material. "Relevant" has to do with a particular article. Claims of sexual assault dating back 36 years are taken seriously and accorded considerable weight in part because of the accomplishments she has made in the intervening 36 years. Consequently in this particular article I think indications of the intellectual substance of the subject of the article are important. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Bus stop are you listening? We're discussing the journal articles here, and it is argued that "editorial discretion" should be used to select articles. I don't know why you are talking about the accusations etc., and the moment someone says, against practice, that we'll use "editorial discretion", we are indeed tasked with evaluating what goes in and what goes out. That she has published articles is pretty much a given, and as "indications of the intellectual substance of the subject of the article" they are unnecessary especially since, I suspect, most of the editors here don't know how to read those indications. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
          • That is probably correct, that "most of the editors here don't know how to read those indications". Then please tell me—what is the argument for removing any of the "indications"? Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her academic accomplishments are part of the reason her testimony has the weight that it does in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearings. I think the average reader is interested in some semblance of knowledge of the depth of her intellectual accomplishments. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The average reader probably doesn't know what goes into peer-reviewed, academic publishing. The average reader is probably satisfied with what the text says---and the reader who wants more can always go to her website or faculty page. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • We write for all readers—average and not-so-average. Furthermore I am not so sure it matters enormously whether or not some readers can or cannot appreciate certain subject matter that may be beyond their ability to grasp fully. All articles are not understood fully by all readers. I don't think we make calculations of that nature. We compile information from reliable sources. Obviously such information must be relevant. An important question is whether or not the material we are discussing is verifiable. Why be concerned that some cannot grasp the full significance of something? An article is written, in this case a biography, because every fact has been checked and has been found to be substantially applicable to the person who is the subject of the article. As you correctly point out we are not "a database for resumes". I doubt this article will ever serve as a resume. I think all of our considerations are with the reader in mind. We don't expect the subject to use this article as a resume. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Usually academic articles are not listed. --Thi (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Not needed, this is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of everything she has done. The same can apply with WP:NOTRESUME. Also from what I can tell most seem to list her a secondary author, so they are not major works by her. Finally the articles themselves seem to have little impact anywhere, so the weight or notability of the articles is suspects in general. This seems more of an example of it is verifiable, but not notable. With all the, the main reason for inclusion I am seeing is that we list them in other articles. That is an easy example of WP:OTHERSTUFF and has no bearing on the situation here. Just because other articles do things wrong does not mean we need to repeat them here. Especially given the policy reasons not to list them. PackMecEng (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove ordinarily we list a handful of articles that have demonstrable impact. A glance at gScholar [40], shows her name on only 4 such articles. And fails to turn up any widely cited articles where she is first or last author (last author is a position often given to a notable scholar who is leading the group that produced an article,) but, given that she's in the middle of long lists of co-authors, I STRONGLY support deleting them all. She's on these lists exactly where you expect to find the consulting statistician on such articles. What she hasn't done is be first author on such articles. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: She has also published under the name Christine Blasey. This search may be more relevant [41]. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
note that the articles I discuss above are under her initials and surname. and note that the first hit in the search User:Thsmi002 suggests is on a textbook she wrote, not on an impactful paper, and it is already listed among her books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I was just mentioning that more of her papers can be found when searching with both versions of her name. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove. Her work, sadly, is not what she's notable for. Few readers of the article will be here to learn about designing statistical models. Maproom (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove We don't usually include these in scientist bios unless they are of special note or importance in the public reception/discussion of the subject. I don't see that case made here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove as is standard in scientific biographies. Natureium (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
We are writing an article here that is a biography of someone whose notability is unique or at least unusual. Standards concerning the inclusion of journal articles should not necessarily be identical to the standards found in other scientist bios. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Er..., this is an encyclopedia. Not an op-ed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I hardly thought this was an op-ed. Each article has its own particulars that determine the form it takes. (We even have an essay, WP:OTHER.) This article was created in September of 2018 not because the subject of the article was a scientist but because the subject of the article came forward with a sexual assault allegation against a supreme court nominee. I don't think this article should be compared in every respect to other articles on scientists. The role that her identity as a scientist plays is not so much in shedding light (for the average reader) on "statistical models" but rather in bolstering her credibility and the weight that her testimony carried when she spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding a Supreme Court nominee. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • that was snarky, and I apologize. But "bolstering her credibility" is not our job. Attempting to maintain encyclopedic standards is. And exaggerating her professional accomplishments is not the way to do that, imho.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Bus stop there isn't a single thing you're saying that makes any sense. "Each article has its own particulars"--sure, whatever, but this nonsense about "bolstering her credibility" is just that--nonsense. She doesn't need a resume to be credible in front of a committee, and it's not up to the reader to decide anything anyway because this is not an op-ed. No one needs to exaggerate anything, and you don't "create" a scientific identity by dropping in a bunch of articles. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak remove - I've never seen a similar list and don't find it particularly useful; however, I could be wrong. L293D ( • ) 18:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It is perfectly reasonable material for an article on a notable person's career. It is not as though it will penalise readers who don't care (half a page for Pete's sake) and it would be of interest to some readers. An encyclopaedia is not there only to gratify the lowest common denominator of material that absolutely everyone will want to read, but to present a rounded article on everything that any reasonable reader might want to refer to, even if many do not. In the case of an academic it is thoroughly plausible that some readers might want to see that material. I am not American, and did not at first realise who the subject was, so I was puzzled about the point of all this, and frankly, having checked, I am shocked at what the foregoing exchanges show to be a politically partisan slant to a WP debate in a product that, politically significant or not, is supposed to be politically neutral. Of all the nutty topics! A woman gets embroiled in a sordid fight over a political appointment, and this means that her article should be pruned in case it... in case it what?? Influences the outcome? Let's not allow an inflated sense of our influence on American politics, to influence our own editing preferences, but instead concentrate on our role as encyclopaedists first and last, and let the gutter press deal with the dirt dishing. We have work to do. JonRichfield (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove section - this is a Wikipedia-wide standard. Make no ad hoc policy exceptions for political cases. The subject is not even first author!. XavierItzm (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep The books, and her first and last author articles are notable to her reputation. It's at least as notable as Brett Kavanaugh's article information that he ran "the Boston Marathon in 2010 and 2015".Ward20 (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove I don't think we generally keep them and for that reason this article should not have any special treatment. These articles[42][43] are probably not most articles for starting an argument either. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: several of the comments above reference completely fictional standards without bothering to even link them, so they can be safely ignored unless replaced with actual arguments. --Nemo 19:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, since this article is asserted to pass WP:NPROF. 19:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talkcontribs)
  • Keep some per DGG (Summoned by bot) Regardless of whether or not she is most known for these or not, we shoudl keep some. Forgive the ad absurdum, but most people are not known for having a birthday or being born in a place or attending university, yet we include* those things. *conditions apply, not valid in Ohio and Cuba Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep some (Summoned by bot). I'm with DGG on this one. It doesn't look ridiculous, the current level feels about right. It also gives a reader some references if they wish to read further. Bellezzasolo Discuss 14:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep at least 10. I think at least 10 journal articles would give the reader an overview of journal activities. In fact, with Civil War author "Margaret Mitchell" where I was hoping to see a list of a dozen various newspaper articles which she had written (beyond book Gone with the Wind), at least her articles were mentioned under "Margaret Mitchell #Reporter for The Atlanta Journal". As for people guideline-thumping to obey standards to insta-delete all articles, I say I am even sick of policy-shoving to rabidly force other users and shove them to remove journal articles from pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:NOTCV. Academic articles are not usually listed on an academic's page, and this person is not known for their articles. (Summoned by bot) Hickland (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
At least try to find applicable policy. Is Blasey Ford trying to use Wikipedia as a curriculum vitae? Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Surely the question of how much (if any) space to give to a list of works as applied to journal articles in biographies related to science and academia, has been asked and answered before? Any relevant guideline or MOS? Has anyone tried asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia? VQuakr (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You'd think so, but I'm not sure. I've previously raised the issue on such talk pages here and here, with little movement. I'm leery of firm rules, but feel at least a framework of recommended practices is in order. Addendum: WP:BIBLIOGRAPHIES is a very broad style guideline, and WikiProject Bibliographies has additional notes, but both seem more applicable to conventional author bibliographies than academics. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "journal articles in a peer reviewed journal can and are notable"--I suppose the "can" is an error of some sort. That journal articles "are notable" is an odd notion--maybe you mean noteworthy. Well, they can be noteworthy--if secondary sources have noticed them. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
the meaning is not that the articles are notable ,but that the articles can show notability. However, that's not exactly right: if they are sufficiently well cited to show theyhave an impact, then they show notability . (I usually includes the citation figures for that purpose. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Normal practice is keep the 3 or 4 most heavily cited journal articles (plus any others for which a good case can be made. I've removed or restored to this level on probably a few thousand articles by now, and almost never been challenged, except by a COI editor trying to keep them all. We do not list them all, because of NOT CV. We do not eliminate them all, because that's the way notability under WP:PROF is usually met for scientists. (see's also notable independent of the GNG, of course). . DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why having 12 publications in total (as is the case now) would be a big deal in itself, but I agree it's trivial to reduce them, e.g. by removing the titles which don't list her as first author (or first-equivalent). --Nemo 07:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    • DGG, and I've probably removed all journal articles a few thousand times--as I have removed editorials published by politicians, book reviews by writers, poems by poets, etc. Notability for scientists, well, journal articles are one way to determine that, but not the only way, and it kind of begs the question of how that is going to be done. It suggests that we can't a. determine notability or b. edit an article without running the resume through a check. And my future notability as a scholar is not likely to be based on anything related to journal articles; it'll be a book, as it is for many. And you know, of course, that resume-wise (and tenure-wise) journal articles are important, but monographs are everything. Ordinary editors, and I count myself among them (and I mean those of us who are not look Randykitty or you), will have a really hard time deciding what the "3 or 4 most heavily cited journal articles" are. You mentioned "a good case"--I pointed out many times that we should obviously include journal articles which have secondary sourcing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I too remove all journal articles in many cases: 1 /when the person is an academic in a field where one becomes notable by publishing books. 2/ when the person is not an academic, and the journal articles are irrelevant to notability,; I also remove all journal articles that are not peer-reviewed, all book chapters (except in some esoteric fields l where they are the major form of publication) and all conference proceedings (except in those fields of engineering where some conference articles do count as on a par with or even superior to journal articles.
In science, in the 20th/21st century, monograph articles are not everything. far from it, they're irrelevant. The (imaginary) anecdote I gave my library school classes is : "Professor X in English comes up for tenure review, and the Dean of Faculty says, why are you publishing these journal articles? You need 2 good substantial books from first-rate academic publishers. Write them, get tenure, and then you can do these little topics in little journal articles. Professor Y in biology comes up for tenure review, and the Dean of Faculty says, why are you publishing these books? That won't impress the granting agencies. You need at least 5 substantial journal articles in absolutely first-rate journals. Publish them, get tenure, and then you can go writing these miscellaneous books." Look at full CVs of any of the holders major professorships in science at major universities. You will find most of them have never written a book. The ones that have, have sometimes written, late in their career, a philosophical or historical or autobiographical book very late in their career, or --essentially as a service -- a semi-popular book explaining their field, or, usually after their name gets recognized as enough of an authority to be a selling-point, a textbook.
the fields that go by journal articles are all the sciences, and those social sciences using quantitative methods. There's overlap in some areas. Before the mid=-20th century, most social science publication was books.
There's a general rule here, applying to all WP bios. We include those accomplishments that contribute to notability as WP perceives it, or importance as the field perceives it, and remove minor things that do not. We include national level awards, not in-house or local awards. We include editorship of magazines or journals, but not being one of many assistant editors. We include being presidents of professional societies, but not routine memberships. We include being chairman of a charitable board, but not just being a member.
Here's the analogy. Musicians are notable by their music, so we always include the musical works. Novelists by their novels, even not the individually notable ones. Sportspeople, their results in all profession or international competitions, but not back when they were on the jv. Artists, by their art works in museums--we include them, but not their others. The reason for us is that we do not do OR or synthesis. We may decide inclusion on the basis of our rules for notability , but we give the reader the opportunity to judge the actual worth for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
and as I should have mentioned, we give not just articles, but at least the highest citation figures in GS or WoS or Scopus. (and any reader can find the others also, if they know to look in GScholar. That's why I prefer to use it, though in some respects it is less exact--the others are very unfortunately only available in large university libraries. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment OK,so some of us remove article refs routinely, and some remove or prune them occasionally, and some add or conserve them. No big deal as long as there is no controversy, or as long as there is no doubt about some explicit rule. But as soon as there really is a significant difference of opinion, I say that constitutes adequate grounds to include rather than exclude. It implies that some people might be looking for material. If not, half a page of bibliography is unlikely to break WP or topple the US government, so we don't need edit wars or walls of text. JonRichfield (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

CNN, Washington Post and Bias[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The question about bias sources should be had at WP:RSN, not here. The rest is becoming less productive as it continues. PackMecEng (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

As with the article on Brett Kavanaugh, the majority of the references are of CNN, Washington Post and other outlets noted for their strong liberal bias. This is troublesome to me. I think that all effort should be made to include information from neutral sources before using these outlets. Imagine how a Donald Trump article would look if all the sources were from Fox or Breitbart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKRichard (talkcontribs) 10:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A couple more inconsistencies in her testimony have been reported by Fox - see the story here. Some more issues are reported by the USA Today here, in what appears to be an opinion piece. However I am not sure if either are usable. FYI Breitbart was recently deprecated as a source on Wikipedia - see here. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Washington Post and other outlets are generally reliable. While they have had dozens and dozens of controversies, they have also published thousands and thousands of correct articles. Any editorializing by a reliable source is removed when we apply WP:NPOV. So we're able to deal with nearly all partisanship. However, the coverage of Kavanaugh and Ford in these outlets has been downright garbage and yellow journalism. We shouldn't engage in denialism and say that journalism and harassment go well together. And look, we actually have a fix for this! It's called WP:Recentism. wumbolo ^^^ 13:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:RSN if you really want to take it up. Volunteer Marek 13:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

JKRichard Here's an opinion column from the WaPo today - titled "Rachel Mitchell expertly eviscerates the case against Kavanaugh." Mr Ernie (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The FBI Report that the Senate Committee is discussing today, 10/4, is more reliable than any of these News Agencies. The FBI Report states that none of Professor Ford's, Ramirez friends, or friends of Justice Kavanaugh agrees with either women's testimonies, of events of 36 years ago.Easeltine (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Apples and oranges. The FBI conducts interviews, just like these news agencies. However, news agencies usually make conclusions, while the FBI leaves that to the judiciary. wumbolo ^^^ 19:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Easeltine, don't put too much faith in that very limited FBI report. The logic behind it goes like this: "We searched everywhere except where lawyers for the accused told us not to look. We didn't find anything where we were allowed to look. So that proves there was nothing there." For some odd reason, if the FBI isn't allowed to interview the right people, they won't find the evidence they have to offer. If you followed RS, you'd know this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: Whoa, easy there. People can follow exactly the same RS and reach completely different conclusions depending on their political bents and worldviews, and regularly do. See Confirmation bias. ―Mandruss  04:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer the FBI reportedly interviewed everyone named as a first hand witness in the Ford case. Any other potential witness would simply be repeating what they had heard from a first hand witness. See the executive summary of the FBI report at this link here. For the Ramirez case they interviewed Ramirez and 2 alleged eye witnesses, as well as one of her close friends. They did not interview Sweatnick, because her allegations were deemed not credible. Additionally, your description of the "logic" behind the report is not supported by the executive summary released by the FBI. Just out of curiousity, who would the "right people" have been? Kavanaugh's and Ford's account were already clear from their sworn testimony to the Senate. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The crucial difference between WaPo, CNN and the like, and Fox, is that the former distinguish between editorial and factual content, whereas Fox very often does not. The article we cite are factual, not editorial. They meet WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
A key point here is that WaPo, CNN, and the like chose to not cover certain factual content relevant to this story. They, for example, did not cover Ford's ex-boyfriend's statements casting doubt on certain aspects of her testimony - the only RS I could find (other than opinion pieces) was on Slate - here. RS covered many aspects of the Ford case with a certain bias, namely that they seemed to all 100% believe her, instead of everyone else present at the alleged event who denied it or couldn't remember it. This seems like the definition of post truth media coverage. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
You have Wikipedia content policy exactly backwards. Wikipedia does not choose which reliable sources to use depending on whether they report what we feel is significant. ―Mandruss  20:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
We have an entire noticeboard dedicated to exactly that. wumbolo ^^^ 20:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. I repeat, with emphasis since you misread me the first time. Please read more carefully before replying.
Wikipedia does not choose which reliable sources to use depending on whether they report what we feel is significant.
The sources that Mr Ernie seeks to exclude above—solely because (according to him, and I'm taking his word for it) they didn't cover what he thinks they should have—are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. ―Mandruss  20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss where did I seek to exclude those sources? They didn’t cover what I thought should have been covered, sure, but I’m not arguing they are not RS nor that they should be excluded. Personally I don’t understand why they wouldn’t cover potential key inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony, but it’s not up to me and I haven’t tried to include that in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: ...WaPo, CNN, and the like chose to not cover certain factual content relevant to this story. RS covered many aspects of the Ford case with a certain bias - If you didn't mean that we can choose to disregard certain RS based on what they choose to cover or how they cover it, I offer my apologies – and I'm not sure what you did mean. ―Mandruss  21:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: it rather depends on what you mean by bias. To cite the great philosopher Stephen Colbert, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
The data shows, unambiguously, that the vast majority of reports of sexual abuse by women are valid (in excess of 90%, rising to at least 98% for cases like this), and that the vast majority of sexual abuse goes unreported. To report based on the assumption that a complaint is likely valid is a bias, but it's a bias in favour of the most likely factual basis. To report on the basis that the claims are probably invalid is also a bias, but a bias towards the least likely - in fact, vanishingly unlikely - interpretation. Occam's razor is a bias, but an entirely reasonable one. See also Russell's teapot.
Reporting the inconsistencies between Kavanaugh's statements under oath and the documented facts is not a bias. It is an objective fact that the GOP concealed most of Kavanaugh's public record and curtailed the FBI investigation, it is also unarguable that Kavanaugh was not forthright when questioned and made many statements that are highly implausible or have subsequently been demonstrated to a high degree of certainty to be false, per testimony of others in his circle and other data. Bias here would be not reporting it, or minimising it.
You could also argue that presenting Kavanaugh's fitness for SCOTUS invokes bias. One form of bias is to present it as a trial of fact on Blasey Ford's claims, with the implication that not being a proven rapist is the bar which a Supreme Court Justice must pass (defensible, post-Thomas, I guess). An alternative bias would be to assert that the bar for a Supreme Court Justice should be honesty, forthrightness, not being blatantly partisan, not being credibly accused of sexual assault and son on. That used to be an entirely mainstream view, but thanks to the Overton window it's now considered liberal activism. I happen to think that's a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Your conclusions are mostly contradictory, but I can't help but wonder who you are responding to. Mr Ernie was talking about how the media ignore inconsistencies in Ford's statements, and you seem to be talking about the GOP's inconsistencies. wumbolo ^^^ 12:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
What conclusions are contradictory to what? Guy (Help!) 14:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Fun but off topic PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ha! Made my morning, thank you. "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Perhaps if your only source of information is a tv comedian that might be true. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Considering that the entire Republican Party is hell-bent on denying the existence of climate change, the facts appear to agree with Guy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Uh huh whatever you say champ. Good deflection with an off topic hyperbolic statement that also gets some whataboutism as well. PackMecEng (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Nothing "deflecting" about it. It's yet another unambiguous example of an entire party (and ideology) denying observable scientific reality because the long-term implications of that reality conflict with the short-term quarterly profits of its financier-class benefactors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
NYT. Facts again: 2/3 of sexual assaults are never reported, a review of research finds that the prevalence of false reporting is between 2% and 10%. Kavanaugh's classmates say he lied about drinking. Kavanaugh gave misleading answers about theft of documents from the Democrats. This is not opinion, it's supported by the limited documentation that was wring from the hands of Kavanaugh's buddy who did the document reviews and redactions. To say that the whole process stinks is hardly controversial, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No one is denying that the process has been stinking for a long time. But the media are downplaying actions by the Democrats, which stink on an entirely new level. wumbolo ^^^ 14:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Which "actions by the Democrats"? If the judiciary committee had done what has been done for every other confirmation hearing ever where new information came to light, and set the FBI to re-run the background check, none of the circus would have been needed. The Democratic members only needed to do anything because the GOP tried to brush the entire thing undr the rug and did withhold the vast majority of potentially relevant documentation. The GOP nominated a party hack to a judicial position and then refused to allow their actions as a party hack to be reviewed in assessing them for that position. Oh, and let's not forget that if the 2/3 majority was still required this candidate would not even have been suggested. That's the real problem here. Candidates for the highest court int he land should command broad bipartisan support, or the court loses legitimacy. Especially since 4 out of the 5 hard-right activist judges were appointed by Presidents with a minority of popular support in the country. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. The GOP did nothing new. But I'm talking about what Democrats did with the allegations. You are free to say that the exact same thing happened with Anita Hill, but plenty of things, including public opinion, were different back then. And you seem to be missing the point: it was not Republicans or Kavanaugh who wanted to delay the confirmation. AFAIK Senator Feinstein is not a Republican, and whether Kavanaugh was willing to testify ASAP or not is actually irrelevant because he's not the FBI. wumbolo ^^^ 15:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on what that the Democrats did with the allegations? Yes, this is the second time the GOP have pushed a credibly accused sex abuser onto SCOTUS, do you think that is a good thing? Do you seriously consider that delaying a nomination when there is a credible accusation of past criminal behaviour is bad? Or is delaying only defensible when the President is the wrong party? Guy (Help!) 19:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ford's accusation was investigated. Kavanaugh denied the allegation. None of the named witnesses could corroborate the event. Some holes were pointed out in Ford's testimony. There's been no mention of any issues since he entered the professional world. The FBI interviewed all the first hand witnesses. Ford didn't tell anyone else about it until 2012. What else can you do? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I would like that a credibly accused sex abuser is investigated ASAP so that criminals are in jail with as little delay as possible. wumbolo ^^^ 19:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ford's accusation was "investigated", not investigated. There are multiple credible media reports of witnesses who tried to come forward and were brushed off. Kavanaugh and Ford were not even interviewed, accirding to multiple independent reports. Numerous claimed witnesses were not interviewed. And the lies under oarh were not even duscussed by the GOP. Are hou familiar with the literature on sexual assault and the barriers to reporting?
But again, you portray this as Democrat malfeasance: what, exactly, is the "correct" way for the party representing the majority of the popular vote to handle a Senate majority that absolutely refuses to follow the normal process and release all records (e.g. Kagan) or to refer credible accusations to the FBI?
Remember that this is supposed to be a judicial, not a political, office. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Are hou familiar with the literature on sexual assault and the barriers to reporting? I am familiar enough for this discussion. But you might want to ask that question to whomever leaked the letter. I think we're going into WP:NOTFORUM territory, so I'm just going to leave a last reply: to answer your question, Senator Feinstein should have referred the material to the Senate Judiciary Committee much earlier. wumbolo ^^^ 21:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You still haven't identified what Democrats were supposed to have done wrong. I see the problems on the GOP side - concealing evidence, refusing to investigate credible allegations and so on, but the "leak" wasn't a leak (unlike the stolen materials Kavanaugh lied about), Ford was clearly asking, explicitly, for this to be investigated. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── All of the first hand witness were interviewed. Ford didn't tell anyone else about it until 2012. Who else other than first hand witnesses could have corroborated it? The other witnesses would only be able to say yes she told me in 2012 that this happened to her. That doesn't help anything, because we know Ford claims it happened. If anyone truly cared about Ford's claims before the hearing, there would have been ample time for any sort of investigation required. Leaking the claim after the hearing and against Ford's wishes is inherently political. Kavanaugh's judicial record from his time on the DC Circuit is available for anyone to read if they are curious about his jurisprudence. The Democrats made the hearing political, with several stating immediately after the nomination they would oppose Kavanaugh at all costs, with one in particular calling him evil. For me in particular I don't care at all what he is accused of, I care about what can be corroborated with evidence. I take this same approach with any candidate, nominee, or politician. I didn't believe a word of the allegations against Clinton until a certain blue dress was produced. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It's disturbing that your response takes no account whatsoever of any of the patient explanations in multiple news media about why women don't report sexual assault at the time. The FBI have now confirmed that their "investigation" was heavily circumscribed, there were numerous named individuals, mostly friends of Kavanaugh, who felt they had relevant information to be considered int at investigation and who were not only not contacted by the FBI, but who were unable to contact them even when trying through multiple routes. There's also the fact that this was presented as a trial of fact, with anything other than slam-dunk evidence of attempted rape being exculpatory. That's not how it is supposed to go for a lifetime appointment to a superior court. "Not actually a proven rapist, probably didn't lie too much under oath provided you only look at the tiny minority of documents hand-picked by his friends" is quite a low bar for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. After Thomas, there was a massive upswing in women running for office, because they justly saw the system as utterly broken. What the Kavanaugh appointment shows is that the only thing the GOP has learned from that is to ensure that the accuser isn't only grilled by old white guys, which, as I think the sources generally agree, rather misses the point. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
What the Kavanaugh appointment actually shows is that the only thing the Democrats have learned is to ensure that they don't only bully the accused. wumbolo ^^^ 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2018[edit]

The paragraph including: "On October 3, NBC News reported that Ford, Kavanaugh, and dozens of other witnesses were not interviewed by the FBI due to restrictions imposed by the White House" should be modified to make clear that: 1) Ford and Kavanaugh were not interviewed by FBI because their sworn testimony was already on file and 2) "dozens of other witnesses" doesn't refer to this case - there were NO other "witnesses" of the alleged incident - but relate to other unsubstantiated allegations against Kavanaugh. (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on which reliable independent sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talkcontribs) 19:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2018[edit]

Please change her displayed photo to this file that I hope I have managed to properly upload here:

This is because her current displayed photo is one of her during her trial when she accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, while Kavanaugh's displayed photo on his Wikipedia page is a respectable photo of him. I feel as if it is only fair for her to have a respectable photo as well, thus I believe it is appropriate to change her displayed picture to an official photograph of her provided by the university she works in. Thank you for your consideration! Liyangelique (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

On hold @Liyangelique: how did you verify that image uses the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license? The source provided for this image goes to a Daily Mail article. I don't mind changing the picture but I need to confirm the license is correct. Also I'm not sure if the image should have a (C) Palo Alto University watermark at the bottom. This usually indicates the image is not released via the Creative Commons license. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That image doesn't look much better than the one we currently have also Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: Image was deleted from Commons for the following reason "image copyrighted Palo Alto University, unable to find any indication they've released this image under public domain". ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2018[edit]

Apologies for previous errors, I have never tried editing a Wikipedia page before! Considering previous remarks, I am now unsure if the picture I provide properly fits your criteria, but here:

File:Christine Blasey Ford Smiles.jpg
Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D. (Photo credit SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Please take it down if it is not something that is allowed to be uploaded, and again, apologies if so. As previously mentioned, I think it is best to make this change because her current displayed photo is one of her during her trial when she accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, while Kavanaugh's displayed photo on his Wikipedia page is a respectable photo of him. I feel as if it is only fair for her to have a respectable photo as well, thus I believe it is appropriate to change her displayed picture to one that does not obviously show that she is in her trial. Liyangelique (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Liyangelique, Not done. That image is also copyrighted with an incompatible license. Please see Commons:First_steps/Uploading_files; images cannot be used here unless they are specifically released into the public domain or into a compatible license like CC-BY-SA-3.0. If you do not see anywhere in relation to an image that it has been released into that license, you cannot upload the image here Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Adding, there are going to be very few images of her that can be used here. The vast vast majority of images of her on the internet cannot be used here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox known_for field[edit]

Why would we not add the known_for field into the infobox? The known_for field quickly gives the reader the reason why the person is notable, and the whole purpose of the infobox is to give the reader an top level overview of the subject. Seems reasonable to have in the infobox a short summary why the subject has a biography on Wikipedia. BarbadosKen (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@BarbadosKen: In your edit summary at 05:50, 11 October 2018 you asserted, "All parameters of a template should be filled unless they are irrelevant." For the record, as @NorthBySouthBaranof: pointed out in his ensuing edit summary, "There is literally no rule which says 'everything in an infobox has to be filled out.'" This is confirmed at Template:Infobox person#TemplateData, where the known_for parameter is plainly labeled as optional. Moreover, Christine Blasey Ford specifically uses Template:Infobox academic (a subset of Infobox person), which does not even contain the known_for parameter—strongly suggesting that the editors who devised Infobox academic excluded the known_for parameter as inappropriate for academics. KalHolmann (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
She is not known for her academic work. She did not have a Wikipedia article prior to making the allegations. The fact that Template:Infobox academic does not explicitly have a known_for field is not relevant. We can change the template used. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
"All parameters of a template should be filled unless they are irrelevant" or inappropriate. Are we going to reduce her notability to being "Known for Accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers."? That in itself would be a WP:BLP violation, in my opinion, of course. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
You lost me how does being known for accusing Kavanaugh of a sexual assault be a violation of WP:BLP. It's all over the article, and the job of the infobox is to summarize the article. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
We can assume readers are not incapable of reading two brief paragraphs to learn what Ford is "known for". All infobox fields—and infoboxes themselves—are ultimately optional (see Stanley Kubrick for an article which, somewhat controversially, lacks an infobox entirely). WP:CONSENSUS, balanced with WP:IAR, should determine the way facts are presented. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
BarbadosKen—OK, it isn't a violation of WP:BLP. It is a violation of common sense. This is an accomplished individual. Her academic accomplishments are impressive. Does it make sense to say she is "Known for accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers."? Such an assertion trivializes the person. Therefore in my opinion that should be avoided. Bus stop (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:RECENTISM. Let's not ram things down the reader's throat, eh? Guy (Help!) 20:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Making" her known for the accusation trivializes her academic accomplishments and her life's work. That's not cool. I don't often agree with Bus stop, but their comment is eminently sensible. Within her field, and people knew her within her field long before this summer/fall, she was known for her work. That the larger population didn't know her (but knows every singer/rapper/actor/tweeter) isn't her fault, and if this summer/fall had never happened she'd still be a scientist and teacher doing what she did, and to the extent she's notable, she's notable as an academic. Do not add that to the infobox. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If Kavanaugh steps down or is convicted, it should be put into the known_for field, just like at Monica Lewinsky. wumbolo ^^^ 20:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Unneeded: I don't see a compelling reason to include "known_for" entry at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


Possibly someone could include this in the article (not sure where though, suggestions welcomed): In 2018, The Wing opened a new space in San Francisco; part of that space includes a conference room dedicated to Christine Blasey Ford.[1] (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 Done Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know quite how to say this—and I wouldn't dream of reverting @MelanieN:—but isn't this…well, just a tad trivial? For one private club to have named a single conference room after Ford somehow doesn't seem noteworthy enough to warrant an entire new section headed Recognition. I hope other editors will weigh in on this. KalHolmann (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I assumed "we" were hoping to fill out the section before this issue fades completely from the public consciousness. Gotta start somewhere. If that doesn't materialize, then you would have a better case for removing the section. Alternatively, you could accumulate candidate items in a section on this page pending "critical mass" (using {{DNAU}} to prevent archival), but I've never seen it done that way.
Whether the Christine Blasey Ford Conference Room would merit a place in such a section anyway is a different question, and I'm neutral on that. ―Mandruss  22:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
By itself, as sole occupant of our new Recognition section, the Christine Blasey Ford Conference Room seems almost comically desperate, like Wikipedia editors are stretching mightily to dredge up noteworthy tributes to Dr. Ford. What's next—a booth at McDonald's? KalHolmann (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude the conference room; seems rather trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Your concerns are valid. I will wait to see how others feel but if there is consensus to remove it I will. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Exclude agree with others above that this is trivial. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Include, obviously. It is not at all problematic. We are not at all "stretching mightily to dredge up noteworthy tributes to Dr. Ford". The subject of the article was recognized by a "women's co-working network"[44]. That sort of recognition is part and parcel of Blasey Ford's reason for notability. Blasey Ford represents feminist principles as does The Wing (workspace). Of course we want to tie these disparate points on our encyclopedia together. This information is not trivial; it is entirely appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)