Talk:Eszter Hargittai

Initial talk

Proposed deletion of this page is consequential on proposed deletion of Crooked Timber discussed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crooked_Timber. Both should be handled together. JQ 04:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Original page made no claim of notability, the page now does and should not face redeletion under speedy criteria. If you have an issue with this article please list it on AFD seperately thanks!  ALKIVAR™ 18:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:EL

Things like being quoted in Wired should be trivial to provide references for, and we should all be on the same side when it comes to removing things without citations.

And the same with external links. Having four liks to a person's various personal web pages violates NPOV if nothing else.

Can we please not compromise our basic encyclopedic standards over something small like deletion or demonstration notability?

brenneman^(t)(c) 08:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to put a little number by the word Wired, go right ahead. And last time I looked, we don't remove authors' bibliographies as a violation of NP:NPOV. Kappa 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  That was uncivil, and uncalled for, and a revert which removes footnotes is doubly bad form. I had commented out rather than removed anything for precisely that reason. Right now the page has multiple links to personal pages by E.H. Does it not occur to you that this is not a good idea? If her "bibliography" is worthy of inclusion in the article, than it should by confirmed (blah blah reliable sources) and put on the page. That is what WP:EL says, after all.

  brenneman^(t)(c) 08:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  If we can leave the list of publications unchanged for now, I promise to add proper notes as soon as I get time. It's only about 5 minutes Google for each one. Isn't there some tag that could be added to the effect of "proper citations needed", instead of things just being deleted?JQ 08:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  I didn't actually delete them, I commented them out so that they were invisible. And the whole "five minutes google search" is exactly my point. It's not my job to go and hunt up citations, although I often do so when I'm cleaning up articles. It's the job of the person who is putting things in to cite them. Shave a monkey, I just don't understand the behavior here. But to answer your question, yes I suppose that or something could also be used...
  brenneman^(t)(c) 08:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  {{citationneeded}} would have enabled AFD voters to better evaluate the notability of the subject without diving in and looking for HTML comments. Kappa 08:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  And if those claims turned out to be false after the article was kept based upon them? You could have heard the screaming all the way to Moscow if I'd renominated... during AfD is when we most need to be worrying about accuracy, not getting slapdash. - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  "You could have heard the screaming all the way to Moscow if I'd renominated... " doesn't seem right. "The previous result was keep, based on such-and-such a claim, however this claim turns out to be false, please reconsider in the light of this new evidence". No-one would mind that. Kappa 09:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  Find me a couple of examples of those and I may concede the point. I would, at the same time, note that all the disputed items now have citations. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wired News or Wired Magazine?

In the body of the article, and in the footnote, we reference Wired. Which article should we link to? --Rob 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I thought it was published in the magazine... but it clearly shows it was a web article. Probably link to news instead.  ALKIVAR™ 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)