Talk:Judith Newman

Subject not notable

The subject of this article does not meet the basic criteria for notability:

• "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
• "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

One third of the sources provided are primary. Most of the rest are either trivial coverage (including a tweet), written by her coworkers at the Times (thus not independent), or do not meet Wikipedia's standards as reliable sources (e.g. retailer product pages). Although there are a few articles that review her books, there are no non-trivial articles about Judith Newman, herself. This results in the article being little more than a resume. Furthermore, this article was created as a direct response to the subject's attempt to get a Wikipedia article written about herself. --JHP (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Evidently, notability is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of material from WP:RS on Google, and no doubt this article will develop in time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The book Newman (openly) co-authored with Samantha Geimer, Polanski's victim more than thirty years ago, gained enough coverage for a couple of sentences to be added to this article, yet currently has no citation. So I agree with 7&6=thirteen that the problems with the article are solely to do with it being 'new'. Also any discrimination against Newman's article because a friend originally creating this article is only based on JN being open about this. Most of the time a COI issue is undisclosed. Sometimes, in cases where the subject is clearly working on his own article, but has a reputation for being 'difficult', it is better to ignore the problem. In this case, the controversy section would doubtless have been deleted if someone close to the subject was behaving improperly.

I would though delete the references to Newman's comments about third-party sources for notability from her Wiki pleading article, she is really only pointing out the issue rather than criticising. It's a sufficiently well-known policy for users, as much as for editors, not to need including here. Philip Cross (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

One can argue about whether her [correct] observations about Wikipedia are "criticisms" or meant as such.

But you can click on "random article" and find lots of less notable people or WP:Fart articles. I don't necessarily think that the 'lowest common denominator' of notability should be the threshold, but I also think that there is (and will be) demonstrated notability here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been an acceptable reason for inclusion. I'm not convinced one way or the other right now, but this argument simply doesn't hold water. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that she was open about her coworker violating WP:COI does not change the fact that her coworker violated WP:COI. It is not "discrimination" to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --JHP (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that this article establishes notability: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3640239/Is-this-the-angriest-woman-in-the-media.html. Ross HillTalk to me! 16:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The article needs an editor — it does read like a C.V. or resume, and is not written in 'wikistyle' and WP:NPOV. That being said, those criticisms are not relevant to notability. I have to go earn a living and will be out of town for a few days, so this isn't at the top of my list. But I'll get back to it, with all deliberate speed (See Brown v Board of Education). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I can do some editing later today. Ross HillTalk to me! 17:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That article most certainly does not establish notability. First, it's about Judith Regan, not Judith Newman. Second, the claim that "Regan would happily knock the teeth out of Judith Newman" does little to establish notability. --JHP (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Take it to AfD and we will see.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This page was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was snow keep. WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I see now. Should have looked better before writing this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Reasonable minds may differ. Hypothetically, and if it was wrong (to ask the question), to err is human, to forgive is divine. No harm, no foul. That's why they put delete buttons on computers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability and wasted space

I agree that Judith Newman is not particularly notable. I also agree with her that many people of little notability in the entertainment world get articles. This used to bother me, but then I realized that Wikipedia is not like a printed encyclopedia: the addition of a not very noteworthy person does not squeeze out possibly more important articles. If having articles for every contestant on American Idol is important enough to some people for them to go to the effort to create Wikipedia articles that pass muster, so be it. I don't ever have to look at those articles. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles, even excessively long ones are trivial in terms of space to actually hold on the server. The omission represents a loss of knowledge far more than the tiny fraction of a digital volume being used. This article is 11kb right now. Which is a fraction of 1 MB, which is a 1024th of a GB. If each GB represented 10 cents of "digital value", this article would be worth 1 millionth of a penny in "storage cost". As long as the subject has multiple sources to write an article that requires no original research, an article is acceptable. That's always been the most basic of all definitions upon which a lot of instruction creep has been founded. Can you cite elsewhere, what was written on Wikipedia? If two or three sources do so, its notable to someone and its inclusion is not "something made up one day". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Wasted space" is not a relevant issue. Nobody who supports this article should use wasted space as a straw man argument. Notability, however, is an established Wikipedia standard. If someone doesn't like that standard, then too bad, this talk page is not a place to re-argue longstanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --JHP (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Newman's article about Wikipedia

The article which has gained our attention now has its own section. In my view, it should only have a passing mention, if at all, in the article. Judith Newman's article is a very entertaining compendium, for those of us involved as Wikipedia editors, of very familiar issues. It is not notable in itself. A Google search a few minutes ago uncovered no third-party comments about it. Philip Cross (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Philip Cross - the quote is not very important, and the article is already mentioned above under "Journalism". -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This same article includes a (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) call for help in keeping this article. At any rate, we should be on the lookout for SPAs. Note to Newman: Wikipedians take a very dim view of biographical article subjects soliciting help to keep their articles from being deleted. It smacks of desperation and lack of confidence that you are truly noteworthy. Rklawton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't say that Newman's NYT article is very well researched. It contains a lot of factual errors about Wikipedia and how it works, and especially about the incompetent companies that take people's money in exchange for writing poor articles about them. I'd refer Ms. Newman to Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, if she really wants to better understand how the encyclopedia works. However, she did understand that if you publish an article in a major media source that is critical of an entry in Wikipedia, lots of Wikipedians will correct whatever has been criticized. If she compares this article now to what her friend Lewis originally wrote, I think that she will see why Lewis's version did not fly: It did not cite third-party sources about Newman and her work; now it does. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I concur with Ssilvers. I would have appreciated it if Newman's article was better researched with regard to how the Wikipedia functions. Just as an article for The New York Times must adhere to The NYT's styleguide, articles for the Wikipedia must follow our manual of style or WP:MOS. Part of the MOS is making sure that articles are supported by secondary WP:RS to maintain a level of integrity and quality. The first draft of this biography lacked secondary sources which is why it was initially rejected. The editor who declined it did provide a link that explained how biographies such as this one need to be written for the Wikipedia. Thus, the issue is less about the notability of this particular author than with how the Wikipedia works as both a community and a dynamic encyclopedia. In addition, I would like to add that for the most part, the Wikipedia is written and edited by numerous unpaid volunteers globally. While I'm sure that there are editors out there who are being paid, this is highly discouraged re: WP:PAY and WP:NOPAY, a point I wish was emphasized in the article. Finally, as a female Wikipedian and an 8 year veteran here, I am perplexed by the statement that there is a "gender bias" in the Wikipedia as I personally have not experienced it (and I have written and edited numerous articles related to women). I would in fact encourage more women such as Newman to become involved in this project in order to learn and understand how the Wikipedia functions. I'm glad this biography is now in good shape, I just felt the need to comment.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that just the fact that we are having this discussion denotes a notability of some sort. Enough for me. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NNC, "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." So, the New York Times article, or anything that Newman wrote, does not need to be notable to be discussed in the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, can someone tell me how it's fair that New York Times articles are only for some people, and not for every individual who wants one? I've also noted they don't always say things that are favorable to their subjects, and there are rumors that they have published errors (of fact!) that aren't corrected before they happen, if at all! And how could it be unethical for me to pay someone to get a favorable news story for myself, when I have the money, and it's legal tender, and someone wants to take my money to do it? (Setting aside the rhetorical questions, I think it's fine she has an article, and she doesn't seem like a bad person, but I think the standard Wikipedia is being held to in the article wouldn't and shouldn't fly here, nor would it at the NYTimes. That's all.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tweets do not necessarily violate WP:BLP

This article cites a tweet by one of Judith Newman's coworkers. It reads: "Times Book Review editor Pamela Paul said, 'Judith Newman could review a potato peel and it would be wry, insightful, and entertaining.' " Pamela Paul said that in a tweet. Tweets are self-published sources and violate WP:BLP. I would also argue that including excessively flattering tweets (self-published sources) by coworkers (non-independent sources) violates WP:NPOV. There is a conscious attempt by the subject of this article to get a flattering article written about herself. --JHP (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed "a conscious attempt by the subject of this article to get a flattering article written about herself," but does that in itself preclude notability? After all, the attempt itself is a long article in The New York frigging Times. And furthermore, the article is a kind of self-proving demonstration that her characterization of Wikipedia is accurate. (Yeah, I know, the Tweet. Focus on that.) 208.120.146.20 (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

JHP misunderstands the SPSS prohibition in the BLP guideline. Paul's tweet is not being used as a source "of material about a living person" – that is, it is not being used to establish a fact about Newman, it's simply being quoted as Paul's opinion about the subject's work. Paul is notable (indeed, she is the editor of the NYT book review), and the quote is of interest, especially since the article does not contain an overabundance of quotes about Newman's work. Moreover, it is not critical of Newman, and it is not a controversial statement, so it does not run afoul of WP:BLP's main purpose, which is to make sure that articles about living people are "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Newman's Facebook page

We can cite to Newman's Facebook page for statements by her about herself. See WP:SELFPUB, which states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."

However, I do not think that Newman's admission that we got her birth year correct is sufficiently clear to conclude with certainty that she graduated high school at the age of 16. Can we please wait for a clearer statement on this before we take off the cite needed tag? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that material notable? --Malerooster (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's of interest that she graduated early. It's unusual, so why not mention it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How so? Is is connected to anything else? Remove for now. If there is consensus for inclusion, then re add it. --Malerooster (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the information that Newman attended university at an early age as the information should stay in the article unless there is a consensus to the contrary, per WP:BRD. Jack1956 (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The material covers her graduating from HS at age 16, not going to college at an early age, though related. Is it really that notable? Does the citation make mention of this? Do we even need the graduating years? --Malerooster (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I started working on this article for the same reason everyone else did. She challenged us (and I felt strongly that she was notable). That said, I feel obligated to note that Judith Newman interviewed me for a story she was working on 10 years ago. As such, I refrained from making any substantive changes to the content of the article once it was referenced, reformatted, and less hypey; I also kept from offering any opinions here or during the deletion-related discussion. (Props to everyone who worked on this article. It's solid!) JSFarman (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Living apart together

This was deleted from the "Personal" section of the article: Newman has written that she and her husband enjoy maintaining separate apartments in Manhattan: "Truthfully, I can't fathom why any couple would want to live together. ... [L]iving apart has allowed us to stay married and remain in love."[ref]Newman, Judith. "For Some Couples, Distance Is Key to Closeness", Self magazine, CondéNet, November 1, 2007 [ref]

Newman has published this information herself, repeatedly, in her books [1] and articles, and her statements have been commented upon by other writers. It seems of interest in the article, because Newman herself considers it is an important part of her biography. Therefore I think should go back in. Besides discussing this in her memoir, you can see it mentioned in the links above and here, here, and here -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have restored this information which was removed and myself accused of edit warring. This information is pertinent to the article and needs to be restored. Jack1956 (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is overdetail on her personal life, quoting herself. It's disproportionate to include such details in an encyclopedia article. The place for her to publish her views is her own publications. It may not be overdetail to sday she lives by herself, giving the reference. Including material like this tends to look like promotion, and promotionalism that cannot be removed is good reason to delete an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll restore the fact without the quote. I misunderstood your edit summary and thought your objection was a BLP privacy objection. I think the quote is interesting, and I disagree that it is promotional, but I agree that it is not essential. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks better, imho. It just states the facts without extra opinion or quotes or whatever. --Malerooster (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if I sounded like accusing you in edit warring, this was not my intention. I just wanted to have the issue discussed here rather that in edit summaries, which is a proper way of finding consensus. I myself have no opinion on the issue, but I am glad that this discussion took place.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

New media mention

Newman was on NPR's Here and Now today, talking about this article and Wikipedia in general, if that's something we wish to add to other media mentions at the top of this talk page. [2] --GentlemanGhost (converse) 19:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added it.--agr (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you consolidate those media mentions above so that they take up less space, maybe with a "show" button? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, but with "hide" button. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judith Newman. 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/20140111014828/http://www.themontclarion.org/archives/3749910 to http://www.themontclarion.org/archives/3749910

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) 05:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Facebook page reference

User:LovelyLillith removed the facebook link and, when I reverted the removal, reverted me (rather than followed WP:BRD). Their ergument was that Facebook links are not permitted per Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID. However, I am not convinced they actually understand this guideline. The very first line of this section says Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,one should generally avoid providing external links to: ... Fine, we follow the link and see: An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

In this case, Newman controls the content of her FB page (or, at least, so far nobody claimed otherwise), and the content covers the area for which she is notable - she is a journalist and an author, and it is pretty common for journalists and the authors to have a FB covering the area. It is in fact an established practice to include FB links to WP articles if the FB is controlled by the subject of the article and they do not go far off their primary activity. I do not see why this article must be an exception.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reverting edits boldly - and coming to consensus, when needed - is how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Edit Warring is a whole other matter. This was not a war, as that was my 2nd edit to the material, and I specifically listed #10 and #11 in WP:LINKSTOAVOID (emphasis mine):

"10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.

11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

An "official" web page would be more the likes of www.justintimberlake.com or www.merylstreeponline.net, not a page on Facebook. If other notable personalities have Facebook, Twitter, etc. listed, they should be removed as well, not stand as an "established practice". LovelyLillith (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

First, WP:BRD says you should go to the talk page if the edit is reverted, not me. Second, I argued that #10 and #11 do not apply since the social media which belong to the subject are excepted. That personal web pages "would be more the likes of www.justintimberlake.com or www.merylstreeponline.net, not a page on Facebook" seems to be your personal opinion, which is not aligned with our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe we have a difference in interpretation of "our policies". Perhaps other editors could weigh in on this? LovelyLillith (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope they will.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It really comes down, I think, to whether she has any other online presence. Per the supplementary subdivisional stop order @WP:FACEBOOK: As an external link:  Generally no. Regular websites are strongly preferred, but exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence^{-my emph}
  Ironically, it's actually easier to employ FB as an RS, not that that is particularly pertinent here. So, TLDR, if she has any other site, use it, and if she doesn't, use this. Simples. Re. sourcing: While we're here though, in my personal opinion (Non-administrator comment) / (Non-bureaucrat comment) I can't really envisage a situation in which that's anything so important to say that isn't covered elsewhere that we are reduced to using FB; somewhat akin to the Daily Mail, perhaps. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment. I agree that we can survive without a FB link, on the other hand it looks like she is only present at FB and Twitter (which has comparable notability), except for the articles she publishes of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  The FB site links to http://www.judithnewman.com, which looks like her "official site" to me. —Kusma (t·c) 14:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  It looks a bit strange, but probably indeed better than FB.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you editors for your input. I agree that http://www.judithnewman.com would be more appropriate as her "official site" than FB and I think that should be included in the article. LovelyLillith (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)