Talk:Jennifer O'Neill

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

File:Jennifer Oneill 2008 Anti-Abortion Washington DC.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jennifer Oneill 2008 Anti-Abortion Washington DC.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

IN DEFENSE OF THE JENNIFER O'NEILL ARTICLE, AND A NOTE TO ALL READERS:

IN DEFENSE OF THE JENNIFER O'NEILL ARTICLE, AND A NOTE TO ALL READERS: This article has been "tagged" at its beginning since one single Wikipedia editor, MikeWazowski,believes it to be objectionable and defective in three particular respects.

First, he finds the article to be defective in HIS opinion and reasons that it "...relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications." It should be noted that this article does contain some references to Jennifer O'Neill's 1999 autobiography Surviving Myself, which was published by William Morrow and Sons Publishing, New York. Apparently, MikeWazowski does not consider one of the biggest publishing houses in America to be a reliable third-party publication source. The total absurdity of this position speaks for itself.

Additionally, under Wikipedia policy guidelines, personal and official websites CAN be used as a source and as a citation. See: Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source

Secondly, MikeWazowski finds this article defective in that in HIS opinion this article contains "...wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information." The factual material in this article is accurate, and true and correct WITH citations. MikeWazowski offers his conclusory general opinion that this article is simply Jennifer O'Neill (self-)promoting without citation to a single example of it in the entire article.

Third, MikeWazowski find this article defective in that in HIS opinion the article contains improper references to "self-published sources." Once again, he apparently consider her autobiography which was disseminated by a third party publishing house, William Morrow and Sons, New York, to be an "unreliable" "self-published source".

Finally, the validity of these negative criticisms must be viewed in light of the source of the accusations in the case. The reader only needs to go to the user talkpage for MikeWazowski to find it is filled with questions from numerous other editors to explain his edits, strike-outs, and deletion of entire pages and articles, which he simply totally ignores. It is also significant that MikeWazowski has been invited to make corrections to any material he finds objectionable, but has refused to do so.

This fact can and should speak volumes, more than any words. Taninao0126 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tanina, your tirade verges dangerously close to a personal attack -- please avoid this and stick to discussion of article content.

The clause you cited (WP:SELFPUB) clearly indicates that self-published sources can only be used under very limited circumstances, including the circumstance that they not be the primary source for an article or section. O'Neill's autobiography is used too heavily as a source for this article, which is a cause for concern. Surely, O'Neill's publishers might be trusted to fact-check her autobiography, but they would not neutralize it -- her autobiography is a self-serving attempt to make her life appear what she wants it to be, not a neutral examination of her life.

In your initial series of edits to this article, you introduced much non-neutral language that has subsequently been addressed. Phrases such as "She is well remembered for her success in the blockbuster movie" are not neutral. Phrases such as "she is most notable for her role in the film" are neutral. Same facts, different tone.

You are a new editor whose sole focus has been this article (or some quick edits at Summer of '42). You appear to be a devoted fan of Ms O'Neill -- that's great. But please take the advice of more experienced editors to heart, rather than fighting with them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Tanina, I agree with MikeWazowski and WikiDan61 here, and recommend reading WP:TIGERS about passionate editing. Autobiographies can be used, but only sparingly. We rely on verifiable independent reliable sources to support claims made in articles, especially in biographies of living persons. Wikipedia is not intended to be a publicity outlet or a fan site.

Please don't be discouraged by any of WikiDan61's or my words - please keep contributing in a positive way, per the WP:Five pillars. --Lexein (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

Based on conversations here and various user talk pages, it seems that the most civil way to have the {{primary sources}} and {{self-published}} templates removed is to add more third-party reliable sources. Here are some suggestions you can find sources:

• Articles on People.com (I updated the article with two references from this site)
• Articles from The New York Times
• Change the external links at the end of the article to references that support individual sentences.
• Copy any appropriate references from Wikipedia articles that link to Jennifer O'Neill
• Google search
• Dig up offline magazine interviews, such as Good Housekeeping 1965, Vogue October 15, 1967 and Cosmopolitan February 1973

I hope that others can suggest more possible resources.

I also suggest people add inline templates such as {{citation needed}}, {{better source}}, {{self-published inline}} or {{peacock term}} to those sentences most in need of references or rewording.

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Using autobio as a source. Query: How, why does one single person get to decide and have the final say?

MikeWaznoski is the one who has actually crossed the line and made a personal attack on me! This is apparent from his response on his talk page. He has stated that "...the maintenance tags stay". How does HE get to decide and make the final decision, simply because he decides he is going to? I do not understand. As to further discussion as to content, it is also stated here (above) that autobios are not favored source of information, and O'Neill's should not be either because "....her autobiography is a self-serving attempt to make her life appear what she wants it to be, not a neutral examination of her life." This broad statement, however applicable it may be in other circumstances, does not apply here. However, as is clearly chronicled and discussed in her autobio autobiography, O'Neill has had nine miscarriages, a broken nose three times, one suicide attempt with pills and later electroshock therapy at a mental facility she checked in to during her first marriage for stress, a broken back and neck in three places from a horse back riding accident, a breast cancer tumor (benign), her daughter's sexual abuse by her fifth husband John Lederer, who also went through all her money leaving her broke, an accidental gunshot wound to herself in the navel, and an unfaithful sixth husband Richard A. Alan who cheated on her with prostitutes. O'Neill says that she wrote this autobiography (her first book) "…at the prompting of her children." Do this in any way sound like an attempt to make her life appear what it was NOT? Hardly so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.230.182 (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this does sound like an attempt to make her life what it may or may not be. A statement like that makes her sound like a victim of multiple bad circumstances who has, nevertheless, risen above her troubles and persevered. I.e., it makes her sound somewhat saintly, which certainly violates WP:NPOV. Also, when one writes in one's autobiography that one has suffered "an accidental gunshot wound to herself in the navel", one may (or may not) be covering up an attempted suicide. Without an independent source on the subject, we can't say, but this self-published source is insufficient for such statements. And, for the record, MikeW is simply stating Wikipedia policy. It is not his decision that the templates should stay, it is Wikipedia policy. True, the policies are open to interpretation, and it was his interpretation that led to the templates being replaced, but other editors (myself and GoingBatty at least) have been keeping an eye on developments on this article, and do not disagree with MikeW's actions. It would appear that the consensus opinion here is that the templates should remain until sources other than Ms. O'Neill's autobiography can be found to verify the various statements regarding her personal life. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. For the record and content wise, the autobio listing of "multiple bad circumstances" are assertions of material fact, in that they actually happened -- is there the thought she is just lying about such bad things happening to her? Your statement that it makes her "sound saintly" and like a victim because she has "risen above her troubles" which is self-serving and thus contrary to Wiki policy, and what you fail to realize is that this is your own evaluative, subjective and interpretive commentary ON these facts. All this just goes to show once again that the grey area between "objective" and "subjective" is itself often not clearly defined and subject to differing and varying interpretation(s). 98.194.230.182 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You can argue about interpretation of facts all day long. The fact is that Wikipedia policy bars the use of self-published material as the sole significant source for such information. Self-published material is only to be used in strict narrowly-defined circumstances, and this article does not meet those circumstances. If you wish to fight Wikipedia policy, this is not the forum to do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that I'm not making any judgement on her autobiography, web site, or any other self-published source. I'm hoping that we can move past the attacks and SHOUTING, and use this forum to discuss the best way to improve the article. To me, it seems the only way to do so is to start adding references. Would everyone in this conversation be willing to add one new third-party reference to the article? GoingBatty (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition of new item with independent verifiable 3rd party ref. to a source called THE NEW YORK TIMES

    To MikeWazowski: RE: The Jennifer O'Neill article, I added a historical fact

about her getting shot, and documented the item with a verifiable reference to an independent third party publication called THE NEW YORK TIMES. Do a Google search on it if you have never heard of it. There had been some talk page discussion that this "self-inflicted" gunshot wound was really a suicide attempt, but police ruled it an accidental shooting as per the NEW YORK TIMES article. This event has obvious historical and biographical significance. For someone to get shot in the abdomen is a pretty significant and memorable event in anyone's life and worthy of mention. Ask yourself, "when was the last time you nearly died?"

    MikeWazowshi be forewarned: You are using the talk page to talk about a contributor

instead of commenting on content, in violation of Wikipedia talkpage guidelines. Your deletion of this recent edit will only prove that you are engaged in an editing war, and your violation of talk page guidelines and editing war with another editor will get you blocked without further notice! Taninao0126 (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Taninao0126 - Mike didn't delete your recent edit. Another user added the proper formatting, but left the text you contributed in place. I don't see any editing war regarding your recent contribution. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Maintenance Tags - Jennifer O'Neill article -

Removal of Maintenance Tags - Jennifer O'Neill article -

I have asked you before specifics on this topic, and I will do so again. You tagged this article with the following maintenance tags:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Tagged since February 2012. It may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Tagged since February 2012. It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since February 2012."

Since you were the one who put these maintenance on there, you are the one who has the burden of justifying their existence.

I will ask you again: for each one of the above three points, you need to point out specifically and with particularity which points, references or info in the article that you claim raises the issues on the tags you claim apply. These points cannot be addressed, discussed, or even changed without some type of specification by you. Any idiot can get into any article and tag it just because they feel like it or simply just because they can. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU TAGGED THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT LISTING, SPECIFYING, OR CITING THE POINTS IN THE ARTICLE YOU CLAIM JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH A MAINTENANCE TAG. FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY OR CITE WHAT PARTICULAR ITEMS FORM YOUR BASIS FOR A MAINTENANCE TAG, WILL BE DEEMED AN ADMISSION BY YOU THAT YOUR MAINTENANCE TAGS WERE INDEED FRIVOLOUS AND TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE.

In other words, any idiot can say "well this article needs improvement" but unless you tell us all, pray tell in your infinite wisdom, THE SPECIFIC POINTS OR ITEMS that YOU SAY need improvement, your failure to do so is more proof evident that you are simply engaged in a frivolous editing war with another editor for whatever unknown reason. Taninao0126 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tanina, firstly I would ask you to dial back your attitude and maintain civility. This is not a case of a single user making these decitions: multiple editors have reviewed your comments over the past several months, and yet these maintenance templates remain. So, let's address them one by one:

1. "This article relies on references primary sources": This article cites sources 18 times. Of those 18, ten of the citations are to O'Neill's own autobiography or other books, or to websites closely associated with her (such as Grable Group, her agents as a speaker, or Hillenglade, the horse farm/rehab facility she runs). When sources other than these primary sources can be found to cite the given facts, this tag can be removed.
2. The peackock terms warning (may contain wording that merely promotes the subject) is easily enough handled by simply changing a few words to more neutral words. (I've already done this.)
3. The self-published sources warning ("may contain improper references to self-published sources") is largely redundant with the primary sources warning. There is a flavor of difference, in that primary sources are defined as being sources related to the subject (such as websites promoting her speaking career) whereas self-published sources are those written by the subject herself (such as her autobiography), but the difference is too subtle to be worth having both warnings. The basic issue is that neither primary nor self-published sources can be expected to be neutral, and so should not be overly relied upon. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Parents

I understand that her father was Oscar O'Neill, a war hero. He was a B-17 pilot during WW II, shot down over Germany and survived being a POW for the rest of the war. Maybe that's an interesting bit of history which should be included?98.170.198.158 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can prove that her father is actually Captain Oscar D. O'Neill, USAAC, B-17 Invasion 2nd, 401st Bomber Squadron, 91st Bomber Group, shot down and taken prisoner on 17 August 1943... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations: you seem to be right, and my scepticism is unfounded. It's an interesting bit of history which should be included, as you pointed out in December 2014. According to this Brazilian source, Oscar Delgado O'Neill was born in Brazil and Jennifer is his daughter_"http://tokdehistoria.com.br/tag/oscar-d-oneill/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

An interesting observation about herself

I remember seeing her on a TV talk show. I don't recall which show it was, but she said rather candidly about her many marriages "I didn't date, I married." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.160.156 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Former Actress

She is not a former actress. she had a part in Reagan that just came out. 209.122.216.158 (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)