Talk:Isabel Gómez-Bassols

Conflict of interest

User:Vasalloe1 wrote in an edit summary *I am Doctor Isabel's talent manager* Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

how can i post information on this person then? Only factual, documented information was placed for her bio. Please help. I read the rights section and it said simply state your interest and that should be enough and now it was removed? a bit severe dont you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalloe1 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Follow WP:COI, and try to learn Wikipedia as quickly as you can.

Minimally, the article needs two things:

1. Clear indication of notability of Gomez-Bassols, with at least one source that meets WP:BIO criteria.
2. Independent, secondary/tertiary, reliable sources to verify most of the remaining content.

Otherwise, the article is at risk for deletion or stubbing. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Raised at WP:COIN - why I'm accused of removing information is a bit puzzling since all I did is add the COI tag. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

i added a univision link to bottom section (External links) to help corroborate her personal and career information. I have not been asked nor paid to do this, just thought it would be nice for her to be up here since she is a national radio personality that has helped many people. how else can i stop this from being deleted. SHould i ask her or someone else that knows her to edit the page and substantiate the info? {help} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalloe1 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 March 2014‎

The webpage is empty when I look at it. What is there? --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you aren't paid, the fact that she is a relative gives you a clear conflict of interest. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

the enforcement of this and other pages i have edited is proving to be a possible personal vendetta of sorts. Sorry to be non-neutral but the reactions to each and every one of my efforts to correct the issue has been heavy handed- now i have received a "clean up" mark on this page. I have reviewed yet again the material and there is not one instance of infraction nor is any part libellous in nature as is stated in Wikipedia statement below. Please advise on how i may appeal this to another editor not DougWeller? I would also like someone to reply and give me specific instance where i am breaking policy guidelines in my entry according to statement below? [User:Vasalloe1]]

Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. Articles should generally not be written from a first or second person perspective. In prose writing, the first person ("I" and "we") point of view and second person ("you" and "your") point of view typically evoke a strong narrator. While this is acceptable in works of fiction, it is generally unsuitable in an encyclopedia, where the writer should be invisible to the reader. Moreover, pertaining specifically to Wikipedia's policies, the first person often inappropriately implies a point of view inconsistent with WP:NPOV, and second person is inappropriately associated with step-by-step instructions of a how-to guide (see WP:NOTHOWTO). First and second person pronouns should ordinarily be used only in attributed direct quotations relevant to the subject of the article. As with many such guidelines, however, there are exceptions: for instance, in professional mathematics writing, use of the first person plural ("we") as "inclusive we" is widespread. Use common sense to determine if the chosen perspective is in the spirit of this guideline. Gender-neutral pronouns should be used where the gender is not specific; see Gender-neutral language for further information. Punctuation marks that appear in the article should be used only per generally accepted practice. Exclamation marks (!) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalloe1 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You can appeal the COI tag at WP:COIN#Isabel Gomez-Bassols article created and currently edited by her talent manager but I doubt anyone would agree it should be removed. I DID NOT add the cleanup tag or any other tags, please stop accusing me of edits I haven't made. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Further cleanup?

I cleaned up the headings and what not, but it looks like some content cleanup would be worth while. --RichardMills65 (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Softlavender performed a good deal of cleanup. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

I've removed the listings of awards again, because all the sources are from the awards organizations themselves. Even if this wasn't a BLP, we need to take care how we use primary sources so as not to violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Generally, primary sources should only be used for additional details on a topic already verified with secondary/tertiary sources.

I see we are using the Mujera award profile in two other places. These should be removed/replaced as well.

Also, I don't believe Internet Movie Database is a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In this particular instance I think you are misunderstanding the notion of "primary source" and also the place of primary sources in the encyclopedia. Unless you can provide a Wikipedia policy wherein the official awards site is not a reliable source for the awards they actually present, they are the source of record, and the most reliable and citable source, for any award. If you care to reconfirm mention or coverage of the awards with less-reliable sources and add them as additional footnotes, feel free, but there is no need for any further citation. Citing awards from the source of record is not WP:OR, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOT. Softlavender (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP. Leave the information out until this is resolved please.

Primary sources by themselves do not establish that information is worth noting. We've no sources that demonstrate that any of these awards are worth noting, so they should be left out per NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE) and NOT (especially WP:PROMO).

Primary sources should rarely if ever be used by themselves per WP:OR, especially WP:PSTS. In BLPs, we should use "extreme caution in using primary sources" per WP:BLPPRIMARY.

Awards are not somehow immune to our policies: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

The solution is to find independent sources, or keep the material out.

Judging by the quality of the articles on the three awarding organizations (National_Hispanic_Media_Coalition, LA/Valley Pride, and National Hispanic Leadership Agenda), it doesn't appear that the awards are worth mention in a BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are perfectly good for straightforward statements of fact that require no interpretation. There is no BLP problem. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, thanks for discussing. The awards are facts and accurately sourced, not unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material; therefore no violation of WP:BLP. The proper source of record to cite awards is the official record of the awards; there is no need to find independent sources for awards. Also, please remember not to remove cited material without discussion and consensus. If you personally believe mention of any of the awards is in violation of a Wikipedia policy, then please provide clear policy-based reasoning and establish a consensus before deciding to remove any of them. Thanks very much! Softlavender (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please address my concerns and the policies?

Seems to me that these awards simply aren't worthy of note, so they don't belong. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The IMDB ref was replaced. Good job! -Ronz (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone is noteworthy enough of having a Wikipedia article, there is no threshold of notability that verifiable and cited awards need to have in order to be mentioned. The awards are not mentioned promotionally; they are not emphasized with bullet points or called out or separated with a section/header of their own. Three awards are mentioned in two succinct sentences without any further commentary. Softlavender (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says otherwise.

Are these awards legitimate? Seems so. They don't look like scams where the awardee pays for the award directly or indirectly. Are they worth noting anywhere other than on her resume? Not according to anyone other than those offering the award that has been identified so far... --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the material as undue and promotional, a BLP violation sourced only with self-published, primary sources. Take it to BLPN if you believe awards or factual statements in general are appropriate when so sourced. This is an encyclopedia article, not her resume, nor a venue for promotion.

I've very quickly skimmed the potential sources below, but don't see any that are helpful on this issue. I'll look more closely when I have more time. Maybe someone can look at the awarders too, beyond what little there is in the three articles? --Ronz (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Ronz. Your question has been asked and answered several times. You need to establish consensus before removing cited factual material. Therefore, I'm going to replace the material. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry, but ignoring our policies does not make consensus. --Ronz (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Both Binksternet and I have mentioned several times that there is no policy violation here. Before removing cited material that does not violate any WP policy, you need to accurately make a case and establish consensus for your case before removing the material. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like WP:IDHT to me, though not for the purposes of disruption, more just a way to ignore proper WP:DR and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential sources from AfD

Here are the potential sources offered in the AfD: --Ronz (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Tuning Into the Good Doctora", Hispanic Executive magazine, Spring 2014. By Michelle Markelz. Dedicated coverage and interview.

  This is an interview with a very short profile. We'll need to be cautious on how to use it. Best to treat it as a primary source. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• "'La doctora' is in: Grandmother of 8 dispenses advice on the radio", Sun-Sentinel of South Florida. March 25, 2012, by Johnny Diaz, staff writer. The story discusses how President Obama called in to the show to talk to Gómez-Bassols about education, immigration and health care.

  This is ref#2. It is a public interest story focusing on her radio show. It doesn't contain much biographical information at any depth. It meets WP:BIO. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• National Hispana Leadership Institute honored Gómez-Bassols was made Regional Awardee in 2013.

  This is ref#4. It is self-published and fails BLP. It contains a detailed biography. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• "The good doctora – Millions nationwide are tuning in to the friendly, firm advice of Spanish-language radio host Isabel Gomez-Bassols", Boston Globe, June 17, 2003. By Johnny Diaz, Globe Staff. Dedicated coverage of Gómez-Bassols on her radio show.

  This is ref#1, by the same author as ref#2. It is a public interest story focusing on her radio show. It doesn't contain much biographical information at any depth. It meets WP:BIO. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• "'La Doctora Isabel, el Ángel de la Radio,' Dra. Isabel Gómez-Bassols", Radio Notas, March 8, 2013, by Minerva Pedraza. Dedicated coverage of the radio career of Gómez-Bassols. In Spanish.

  Very brief, warmed-over press release. It should be treated as a primary source. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• "MiaSci on the Radio: More Science for a Better Nation", the blog of Miami Science Museum, the Patricia and Phillip Frost Museum of Science, on February 21, 2012. "Cheryl Lani Juárez, the Museum’s Sr. Director of Professional Development, was invited to speak with Univision’s highly popular national radio host Dr. Isabel Gómez-Bassols."

  Probably a reliable source for what little it says about her. Besides the quote above, it has a brief introduction, "Dr. Isabel’s program is part of Univision’s national education campaign, entitled Es el Momento and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Univisión is committed to disseminating educational information through all their media platforms including television, radio and web, to raise general awareness of resources available to address the Latino education crisis in STEM fields." --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• This 2014 book on activism calls her "a well-respected radio psychologist with a large Hispanic following". (The chapter is on domestic violence.)

  Supports her notability. The full quote is "Doctora Isabel, a well-respected radio psychologist with a large Hispanic following, also joined the campaign by discussing family violence issues on her show." --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read WP:SELFPUB, and WP:BIO, because you've misunderstood or misread the policies. If you'd like to add additional citations to the article, feel free; if your research determines that something in the article is in error, please fix and cite it. Thanks very much. Meanwhile, neither the article nor the citations currently used need any tags at all. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

How about explaining your position rather than focusing on editors that disagree with you? --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

{{BLP sources}} template

After cleaning up the article (as Binksternet mentioned above) and citing everything on March 31, I removed the {{BLP sources}} tag because nothing was either contentious or uncited. Could we please keep the tag off the article, since we've established that there is nothing either contentious or uncited in the article as it currently stands. If something needs citation or additional citation, could editors please use the {{cn}} tag rather than an unnecessary template at the top of the article. Thank you very much. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We've established no such thing. Please follow WP:DR and WP:CON. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed your BLP template because there are no issues left to fix. Whatever BLP issues that had been present are taken care of primarily by Softlavender's cleanup. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So consensus is a vote, and policies can be ignored by vote? Sorry, but your personal opinions don't outweigh general consensus. Do take a look at WP:DR and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have actionable complaints then voice them. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like editors here simply aren't interested in following our policies and guidelines, so we'll have to get others involved that do. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of sources

Here's a list of the current sources for easy reference: --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Diaz, Johnny (June 17, 2003). "The good doctora: Millions nationwide are tuning in to the friendly, firm advice of Spanish-language radio host Isabel Gomez-Bassols". Boston Globe. Accessed March 2014.

   This is our best source by far, though it is a public interest story focusing on her radio show. It doesn't contain much biographical information at any depth. Meets WP:BIO. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

2. Diaz, Johnny (March 25, 2012). "La doctora is in: Grandmother of 8 dispenses advice on the radio". South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Accessed March 2014.

   Same author as the previous source, and a very similar article in focus and scope, just more recent. Meets WP:BIO. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

3. Dra. Isabel Books and Audiobooks. DoctoraIsabel.net.

   Her official website. Seems to meet WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLPSELFPUB, though it should not be used as a sole source of information in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

4. Mujer Awards: 20th Anniversary; November 14, 2013; Washington D.C.. National Hispana Leadership Institute. Accessed March 2014.

   Self-published. Fails BLP. It should be removed. It contains a detailed biography. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

5. "Univision Radio Launches National Self-Help Radio Program with the Popular Dra. Isabel Gomez-Bassols". Business Wire. March 8, 2004.

   Press release. Because it's being used with ref#2, it seems fine. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

6. PROGRAMACIÓN. Univision America.

   Self-published. While it's being used with ref#2, I don't see what additional information it provides. It should be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

7. 14th Annual Impact Awards Gala. National Hispanic Media Coalition. 2011. Accessed March 2014.

   Self-published. Fails BLP. It should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

8. 2011 LA Pride Honorees: presented by Christopher Street West. Archived October 23, 2013.

   Self-published. Fails BLP. It should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please carefully read WP:SELFPUB, because you've misunderstood the policy. Also, the author's page on her books is the citation for the type and number of her books, not for the rest of the information in the lede (which requires no citation as it's sourced in the body text). If you'd like to create a complete Bibliography section listing all of her books and their translations instead, please feel free; otherwise, that page is the only complete and accurate compilation of her books on the web, so it's the best and most reliable source (see WP:PRIMARY). By the way, if you feel the material in this Wikipedia article is not notable or accurate (and by extension the subject is not notable), that's an issue for the AfD discussion, as there is no WP:BLP violation here. If you'd like to add additional citations to the article, fine; if your research determines that something in the article is in error, please fix and cite it. Thanks very much. Meanwhile, neither the article nor the citations need any tags at all. Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry, you'll have to explain your interpretation better, rather than accuse other editors that don't agree with you of misunderstanding. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  Note that I've been discussing how noteworthy something is, referring to NPOV, a content policy. This is not about our policies and guidelines related to the notability of a article topic (WP:N, and WP:BIO for a BLP), which are not relevant to content directly beyond the need to clearly identify the reasons for notability and give them proper weight. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential sources

• http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/03/entertainment/ca-49997

  Similar to the two by Diaz but older. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  It should be used to verify her education and work as a psychologist, which is currently only verified by a self-published source. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article until 10 April, 2014, per the edit warring complaint. Please use this time to get consensus on whether the subject's awards are properly sourced. I removed that paragraph because it was challenged under WP:BLP for being self-published. It would be reasonable to use WP:RSN or WP:BLPN to get feedback on whether the sources are adequate. If consensus is reached, the protection can be lifted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: We've had consensus here since April 1 that the sources are fine and accurate and that there is no WP:BLP violation. They are not WP:SELFPUB, they are the official websites of the national organizations that present the awards, which per Wikipedia policy are the official WP:PRIMARY sources of choice to verify and cite awards. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No consensus. Consensus does not mean we ignore policies and any editors that disagree with us. --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't BLP apply to the self-published sources?

A short summary of the previous comments would be helpful for BLPN. It might be helpful to remember what BLP actually says:

Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material.

Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves.

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.

It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone...

And, of course, all of WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Books

Since we only have her website verifying the information, it's undue in the lede. Any preference on where it should go? How about at the end of the last paragraph in "Career"? --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved to and for first paragraph in "Career". --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)