Talk:Jessica Yellin

Untitled

"She has been shown to have been responsible for the controversy over Sen. Obama's adherence to his Iraq withdrawal plan." Removed from article- no citation

CNN Interview

Please do not include information on the CNN interview without proper sources. It could be considered controversial, and the policy (which is clearly displayed at the top of this page) states that it must be removed immediately.--PB54 (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But the material is not poorly sourced: a link to the actual video of the interview is provided. It is possible that the video could be taken down, so a link to a transcript of the interview would be better.

Done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton exchange

Yellin had a notable exchange with Bill Clinton when she asked him a question. I placed this onto her page and sourced it and for some reason it was removed -- the comment that was left by the person who scrubbed it was that the page was " her bio" - and I say of course it is her bio and in her career sometimes she will have a key role or momentous moments in her career and this exchange with Bill Clinton was one of those and is a key part of her career and a key part of the dynamics in the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

sarah palin rape kit charge story

Yellin is the only major US reporter to report on this story by a major broadcast network- that is related directly to Yellin's career, for some reason this also was scrubbed without a clear justifiable reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 07:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Holographic projection

Jessica Yellin became the first person to be projected holographically on live television as claimed by Wolf Blitzer the night of November 4th 2008. Vandalism is not present and revert-bot (whether human or not) is not examining content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.171.37 (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no holography involved in what CNN did, just synchronized blue screening using tomography, and Wolf Blitzer just acted as if he saw her while in fact only the TV viewers saw jessica, as her picture was electronically inserted into the TV picture of the broadcast, synchronized and animated by computer. It was an artistic license" to call it a holograph, but technically it wasn't a holograph at all. also see talk:holography Mahjongg (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What is significance of the sentence: "The two appeared to converse directly, although Yellin was in Illinois, and Blitzer was in New York."? Two can appear to converse directly even if only ordinary video communication technology is used. And it would be enough to say that they weren't in the same studio, no need to specify where was who.

This sentence looks like it was written by an journalist to increase the popular feeling of how amazing was this "achievement". --193.198.17.211 (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it; I ain't no journalist. The significance is to describe what the whole point of the special effect was. I mean, there had to be a reason for it, and this was essentially to make it APPEAR as if the two conversed directly, yet separated, I believe in their own words by a "1000 miles." Perhaps you could reword it by adding the word "make," thus:

"The two were made to appear to converse directly, although Yellin was in Illinois, and Blitzer was in New York."

or if you like original research and speculation (like journalists do) then how about this: "Blitzer attempted to deceive the audience by pretending to speak with Yellin as if she was in person, making false statements about how she appeared. The big coup de grâce was that Yellin was a thousand miles away, and Blitzer coyly used the opportunity to feign a direct conversation with someone whom he could not see." I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

My edit was taken out; it was a good faith edit, the comment was supported; should not have been taken out. A good faith edit shouldn't be taken out without discussion. I wish to have this issue diuscusssed in this forum further.Mwinog2777 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for not discussing this change here. I guess my main issue was that the source (FrostSnow) doesn't feel like a reliable source – is there a publisher? is the material reviewed by an independent panel of experts? et cetera. Since we are dealing with a WP:BLP, I felt "Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately" applied. Beyond that, the removed information was really reporting that there is no information. So given that banality, it felt un-encyclopedic. Still, afterwards, you are right - I should have discussed the removal here. Please accept my sincere apologies. SueDonem (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence." You are right, I was reporting the absence of information; almost every modern bio on Wikipedia has a section on "Personal." Hers did not, now it still does not. So, I was giving evidence for the absence of her personal information; from my experience as a >10,000 edit Wikipedian, this is a valuable part of the bio; also in my experience, this is the first time it has ever been deleted. People deserve to know why there is no personal info; I did give evidence of why. What gives you the right to be judge and jury on: 1. the reliability of the source? 2. the question of banality? 3. the contentiousness of my edit? I would ask you to voluntarily reinstate my edit and let others in this discussion make a consensus decision. Before criticizing FrostSnow, check out the site, please, and do a little research into it. Yes, there are writers and editors. Publisher? You are living in the wrong century. Reliable websites do no need publishers. Books, newspapers, etc. need publishers; relability on the web is not constrained by the need of a publisher. AND, I don't believe I was contentious ("causing or likely to cause an argument") in my edit. But, thanx for your kind apology.Mwinog2777 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

More apologies as it seems my edit has caused some offense. I have nothing but love and respect for such a valuable and prodigious Wikipedian such as yourself. As you know with >10,000 edits, we have to be particularly cautious when it comes to a biography of a living person. So this is one of the cases where the proper protocol would mandate that we leave the questionable material off of article space until we can resolve this disagreement. Given that the main issue at hand is the reliability of the source (FrostSnow), I would suggest posting our question about the source to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If there is a consensus that FrostSnow is a reliable source for this information, then I would be more than happy to personally restore the edit. Thank you! SueDonem (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative to make such a request from WP:RSN. You can find the request here. SueDonem (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The main issue is was this contentious material. Contentious material cannot be poorly sourced; on the other hand, who is to say the material was contentious? I am unable to do original research on Wiki; hence, I used Frostsnow; they may not be the most reliable, but a source nevertheless, enabling me to publish this material without doing my own research. The question is, beyond you, does anyone find this information contentious? You're great and no further apologies needed.Mwinog2777 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The opinions offered at RS/N thus far is that the source is not reliable. Our job with a BLP is to make sure that we get the article right. Thus, we must be firm about using high-quality sources. Therefore, we should leave the content in question out until a reliable source is found to verify it. Thank you! SueDonem (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I've gone to 3rd party resolution. "Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately" Yes, but there nothing contentious about what I said in the personal section. Hence, did not meet criteria for deletion on basis of less than stellar source; remember, I could not do primary research into her personal life, not allowed. Someone else did; may not be stellar, but my edit wasn't contentious. I had proposed that we leave it in and see if others found it contentious. You wouldn't to agree on that. To avoid an edit war, I have asked for 3rd party opinion. Thank you, you are still great.Mwinog2777 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Jessica Yellin and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." First, kudos to both of you for talking rather than edit warring and more kudos for reaching out for advice and help to RSN and, now, to dispute resolution. On with the opinion: BLPREMOVE provides guidance for situations in which consideration should at least be given to removing material immediately (and, indeed, there is a — weak — 3RR exception to back it up). However, it is a well-established principle at the verifiability policy that any unsourced material can be removed merely because it is unsourced and that, once removed, cannot be replaced without a reliable source. The best practices are to look for sources before removing unsourced material or to {{cn}}-tag it and wait, but merely removing the material is acceptable*. (There have been many attempts at V to change this, but they have uniformly failed.) Thus, if the source here is unreliable — and I agree with the opinions given at RSN on that issue — then the material is unsourced and, having been removed, cannot be replaced without a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia. Remember: If information is important enough for an article, especially but not only a BLP, it generally shouldn't be too hard to find a good-quality reliable source for it. V is just the threshold, it still has to pass UNDUE and if you have to struggle just to get past V then getting past UNDUE can really be tough.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 04:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

* Footnote: Hearing this sometimes causes some editors to go on sprees of removing unsourced material as a hobby or regular practice or, worse, for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. While there's not ever been a consensus for the reasoning behind it, this is sometimes seen as disruptive in a way which will subject the editor to sanctions. Not a good idea. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)