Talk:Elizabeth Austin (writer)

Episcopalian

Her article at faithfuldemocrats.com, posted Aug. 27, 06, “I’m an Episcopalian” was used to support her religious denomination. A person.s own posting is considered a reliable source for information about her own life, and her religion is pertinent to her book about religion and some of her other published writings. It is not mentioned as a claim of notablility, but as other relevant info. Edison 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from user talk

The sections were removed because they cited an online community web site "FaithfulDemocrats.com", which is generally not used as a reliable source-- even if it is the author writing about herself. Further, in biographies about individuals, neither ethnicity nor religion are appropriate for emphasis, unless they are specifically relevant to the subject's notability. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies). In this case, Ms. Austin is not notable for being an Episcopalian; she's notable for being a writer. Similarly, apart from perhaps Mormon writers and Jewish writers, you won't find religious affiliations listed for other biographies of authors. Finally, not all edits require use of talk pages. Remember, editors should be prepared to have any article to which they've contributed to be edited mercilessly. Regards, --Leflyman^Talk 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Again, her being an Episcopalian has no bearing on her notability; if that's the basis of the article, I would likely consider it a candidate for AfD.--Leflyman^Talk 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly one does not become notable by virtue of being an Episcopalian. But in her case, she is an author of a couple of books and numerous articles in mainstream national publications. That gives her notability. Given that an individual is notable, other facts of her life become worthy of mention. As an example, given that Larry Craig is a Senator, the fact that he sings in an amateur barbershop quartet is apparently notable and encyclopedic, but he would not get an article just by singing in the quartet. An author or other celebrity who has notability sufficient for an article may then be entitled to mention of his birthplace and birthdate, his college, his spouse, his children etc, none of which are sufficient in themselves to justify an article. Edison 07:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think you're still missing the point: being an Episcopalian has nothing to do with her notability on Wikipedia. This is simply commonsense and borne out by the standards presented in other bios. Whether another article includes a trivial mention of membership in a barbershop quartet has no bearing on this particular inclusion of religious affiliation. It's simply not appropriate here, and I'm surprised by how much you are contending it has some importance to her article. I'll repeat: whatever her religion, it is not notable. Further, the blog-like entries (which you refer to as an "article" above) she made on FaithfulDemocrats.com should not be included/sourced here, as per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons:

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:...

It is relevant to the person's notability;

--Leflyman^Talk 16:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: the comparison with Larry Craig's barbershop quartet "The Singing Senators" further fails as it is referenced to a Wired magazine article about the group, which included John Ashcroft and Trent Lott -- making it rather notable for inclusion.--Leflyman^Talk 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP:"Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." (emphasis added).Thus her posts at Faithfuldemocrats.com or other blogs or online publications by her CAN be used as sources of information about her. Being an Episcopalian is not a controversial or contentious issue, or in any way an allegation of disreputable or libellous material. I really do not see why that is an issue. Given that she is notable on the basis of her writings published in Washington Monthly, and the mainstream publications, then information such as her family life, being a Girl Scout leader, or her writing about her Christian beliefs is what takes it from a bare stub to a more complete article, just as would be the case for any other author or journalist who has an article here. She wrote a religious book, so her religion is an important part of who she is. It is not the case that only the barest listing of things which make someone notable can be included. Please compare this to the article on author, journalist and commentator William F. Buckley, Jr. where his politics, his family, and his religion are discussed.Edison 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article to give less prominence to her religious life, per Leflyman, although I think it is less interesting this way. Edison 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Book reference restoreed to article

Someone removed one of her books. I have confirmed the details per [1]"Our Journey with God with Passport Instructions" (Paperback) by Elizabeth Austin (Author). Publisher: Inspiring Word Publications (1997) Language: English ISBN-10: 0965551415 ISBN-13: 978-0965551410 . Edison 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edison, you've confirmed that someone with this name has written this book, but that does not mean that the topic of this article wrote this book. She has written the foundation saying that she hasn´t, and I think it´s a good idea to take her word for it. There´ll be little else she or anyone else can do to prove that it was written by someone else, with the same name, as it seems to be quite an an unknown book. Amazon doesn´t seem to be very good at discerning between writers with the same name. --JoanneB 20:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you an official of "the foundation?" I created the article, and no one contacted me to say it was not her. I had thought it was, from the similarity of topics, but if the subject properly identifies herself and denies it then it should go. That is the peril of an author with a name which is fairly common. Thanks. Edison 22:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a 'official', but I am one of the people handling OTRS tickets. Again though, like I stated before, Amazon treats all writers with the same name like one and the same. So, in general, even if someone unrelated raises the slightest bit of doubt, I think you should try and find another source. If there isn't, than missing some information is preferable over misinformation... --JoanneB 10:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elizabeth Austin (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109215633/http://www.twbookmark.com/authors/83/2063/index.html to http://www.twbookmark.com/authors/83/2063/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621164319/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0306.austin.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0306.austin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)