Talk:Anneke Lucas

Comments prior to merger / AfD decision

== Sources that are not reliable, secondary sources == Here are the citations that I have removed because they are not reliable, secondary sources. Please note three things: Some of these may be able to be added back for basic facts, but there is such a heavy reliance on the primary sources, youtube videos, etc. that I would like to see what can be found with better sources. Often secondary sources provide good info that can go across the article. I will be ensuring that all content is cited. I do that anyway, but removing these out of the way makes for a faster job. There are some that remain that may not be reliable sources - many of them do not look familiar to me as what I would call mainstream news. Primary sources Youtubes - - This is not professional quality - This is not the World & I magazine. It seems to be a professional quality video with proper editing, but I am finding reference to it in a section called World & I on a bloggers page and I don't see that it was published anywhere This is a short clip of Telemundo in Spanish and in the second half of the clip there's a short interview with Lucas. From the little Spanish I know, she's describing the classes and yoga in prison, and I'm not sure what else. In addition, I am not finding info to create a citation (date, title, etc.) - This is an episode of NRI Samay Radio and is in their playlist. They posted it in November 2014. If I can find the date that it aired (for WP:Verifiability, I think this one can be used.—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Regarding youtubes, I am seeing per WP:YTREF that we can use them if 1) The youtube is of a specific program, 2) The citation uses the information about that program/episode/etc. and 3) we don't use the youtube link in the citation. So, where I can find the info, I'll do that.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Others that are questionable if they meet the standard for reliable secondary sources - this is blog talk radio; - this is just a link to a home page; - she worked at Yoga City, not an independent source; - this is a blog; - this is a podcast; - this is by a person that included Lucas in a documentary he filmed, so not independent References Work in progress.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC) == Content I'm unable to find sources for == In 1997, Lucas published a novel in Belgium, De dove muzikant (The Deaf Musician}, about an eighteen-year-old woman who meets her father, a famous composer of classical music, for the first time. The relationship immediately turns sexual. The protagonist struggles to leave the relationship and let go of the dream that helped her survive childhood sexual abuse, in which her real father would rescue and care for her. Though published as a novel, the story was like that of Lucas' relationship with her biological father. - I am not finding anything with her name for The Deaf Musician and there is scant information, mostly from booksellers for De dove muzikant - no independent reviews I removed the name of the father, because I am unable to find any evidence from a reliable, secondary source that she is the daughter of that composer. I also haven't been able to find that he had a daughter. LPY’s Board of Directors includes two members who were formerly incarcerated, Michael Huggins and Ivy Woolf Turk, both of whom taught yoga during their incarceration. - I am not finding Ivy OR Woolf on the board of directors page. I am not finding that Huggins was previously incarcerated, either. Many of the yoga teachers she oversaw also have backgrounds in social work and psychology. - I am finding only one person who has their degree in social work, no one in psychology on the organization's teacher page --—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Here is something about the novel. It seems the novel came out in 1996 in English, and has been translated to Flemish (ISBN 9789029060509) in 1997, but not by the author herself. review (Flemish): https://ronnydeschepper.com/2010/07/04/de-dove-muzikant-door-anneke-lucas/ seller (Dutch): https://www.hebban.nl/boeken/de-dove-muzikant-a-lucas (removed link, book sold out: http://www.omero.nl/auteurs/l/u/lucas/de-dove-muzikant/) References == Finding reliable, independent secondary sources == Copy of a post I made at WP:Articles for deletion/Anneke Lucas: I agree that the article can have real impact, however, I am concerned that there aren't sufficient sources from mainstream media. The only real mainstream source that I see is The Atlantic. The Huffington Post article is a blog article, written by someone in the yoga field. There are 15 sources that I moved to Talk:Anneke Lucas because it doesn't seem that these fit the bill in terms of reliable, independent, secondary sources (e.g., articles written by her, content from her site, Yoga City (where she worked), blogs, youtube videos and podcasts, profiles or biographies that are likely to have been supplied by Lucas for speaking engagements and other reasons. What remains are articles or pages, several of them in a Q&A format, for sources that I don't think fit the definition of mainstream media - and I am not sure how many of them are reliable sources (e.g., dnainfo.com, mic.dom, suitlesspursuits.com, Sutra Journal Home (not independent), happify.com, newsbeatsocial.com, givebackyoga.org, and mentalpod.com.) It seems very strange to me that she is doing the work in New York prisons, which seems to make significant change in prisoner's lives, but there is not one New York newspaper that I can find that has written about her. I'll keep working on it, but if someone has thoughts about the sources could respond to here, that would be great!—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Struck out suitlesspursuit - barely mentioned her, definitely didn't cover the content that was being cited.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Dear Carole, Thank you for all the work you have carried out today, on this article and on its connection with the Devreese article. I have had unease about its content and sources and didn't know where to begin, as it was clear to me that much work was needed to bring it in line with our encyclopedic standards. I now realise that your incisive approach and clean-up is exactly what was needed and I am sure you have done our encyclopaedia a great service today; thank you for taking this initiative. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 21:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Pdebee / Patrick, that's very nice of you to say. If you have any suggestions or thoughts, particularly about sources, that would be helpful. I'm kind of taking my best shot, but I am unfamiliar with most of these sources and not always certain that I'm right whether to include or exclude them - an am focusing on those with some kind of editorial control, or in the case of NRI Samay Radio, journalistic background.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Dear Carole, You're most welcome. I have re-read the article today and took the liberty of applying cosmetic changes to fix a few typos, improve the flow of the prose and add a few more wikilinks. You did a great job with your earlier pass and it seems to me that the article is now less promotional and a little bit more encyclopedic. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 18:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Excellent edits, Patrick. Being too close to it, I usually need a bit of time to come back and copy edit. Thanks so much, it reads much better now.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge to Positive criminology

As mentioned above, the AfD decision was to merge to the positive criminology article. This also included merging Prison Yoga Project, and James Fox (prison reform advocate) articles to Positive criminology. The content was moved with this edit.—CaroleHenson (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This is pathetic

You have vaporized an entire article about a woman because she spoke publicly about her childhood experiences. Since when would recorded, voluntary firsthand accounts not suffice to substantiate allegations, much less justify the elimination of an entire article that had already been in existence for months? This is flat-out censorship due to the sensitivity of the topic of child sex trafficking, and the corruption is transparent. Had the difficulty been inability to substantiate the claim, all that would have been required would have been the removal of the reference to her claim. Instead, you have chosen to wipe the memory of her from the website. Shameful conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.163.215 (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It does not sound as if you have read the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Anneke Lucas. The reason that the article was merged had nothing to do with her childhood experiences.

If you look at the discussion, and the Talk:Positive criminology page, you will see that Prison Yoga Project and James Fox (prison reform advocate) were also merged into the articles due to WP:GNG and other reasons. In the case of Lucas, part of the issue was proving her notability according to WP guidelines and there was a lack of reliable, independent secondary sources. Please also see the issues with the sources that were used for the article. No one replied with better sources and I spent quite some time looking.—CaroleHenson (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it contains reliable sources and a significant story about a woman who was trafficked. The woman is an activist and is a champion for gender equality and it should be considered. --GretaIndie (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion posted at user talk page

Hello Carole, Is there any political motivation behind your decision to delete Anneke Lucas' article? Please give me your phone number. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GretaIndie (talk • contribs) 11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am confused about why you are posting this on my page. I wasn't the person who nominated the article for deletion, nor the one that closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anneke Lucas. In fact, I tried to see if I could save the article, but found that there were not reliable, independent secondary sources to establish general notability. So, that's why I voted to "delete". There are others that voted to delete as well.

It wasn't merged into Positive criminology in a vacuum. Prison Yoga Project and the one about the person who started that organization were also merged into that article.

Lastly, no, my vote was not at all politically motivated. I have no idea what that means in this case, this article wasn't a political article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Request edit on 16 April 2024

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

References

Why is her story deleted? Completely unacceptable. Good to know that wikipedia also sensors what they assume the public does not know. 160.93.12.5 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anneke Lucas for why this page was redirected. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)