Talk:Kamala Lopez

Restored film controversy paragraph

The fact that A Single Woman author and star criticizes the film is significant and verifiable. Why remove it? This page continues to read like a fan site.Webberkenny (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I can help answer your question, but why do you think it requires administrative help? I've replaced your request for adminhelp with the standard help me tag. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That fact seems more relevant for the film's article than for this one but in both cases a {{helpme}} tag is not needed. If you disagree with other editors on the way an article is written, please use dispute resolution instead. Regards SoWhy 07:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. Sorry about using the wrong tag. I think it's significant that the director and author/star of the film are at odds. It turns out, they're cousins, though (interestingly) Lopez denies it. Simpson has said that she gave Lopez the project out of familial love and trust and that it was appropriated and exploited by Lopez. I intend to research and cite this part of the story, but I think the springboard for that section needs to be the paragraph in question.Webberkenny (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

The above post is demonstrative of a thoroughly personal and inappropriate agenda. This is an earnest plea that you cease this course of action and withdraw from editing this article. I have posted my concerns on the Dispute resolution noticeboard JHScribe (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph in question, and replied at the DRN thread. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people is quite clear that inflammatory material such as this should not be included. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

update

• - Lopez relationship with her cousin, Jeanmarie Simpson

This page needs serious moderation by an unbiased administrator. I believe the site's creator is either Lopez herself or her husband. Please see Mr. Stradivarius' talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius) for more details.Webberkenny (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that an unbiased administrator should be involved. webberkenney continues to post irrelevant info Mr. Stradivarius already addressed by stating:

"...it is ok to have some criticism of the film in her biography, but only from mainstream film critics, and there should not be too much weight on the criticism compared to the other coverage of the film. Criticism from Simpson should probably be limited to the article on the film itself..."

I again implore the fan of Simpson to offer any other CREDIBLY REFERENCED facts, either positive or negative, about Lopez as this is about Lopez not Simpson or the film except in the context of Lopez. Simpson's opinions are already documented as Mr. Stradivarius recommended and as webberkenney diligently provided.

JHScribe (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I will contact Jeanmarie Simpson through her website contact form. I'm sure she will shed some light on this.Josiewarvelle (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeanmarie messaged me here and said she wants her page removed and wants no part of this. The article on her has been nominated for deletion.Josiewarvelle (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Film review sited

weeberkenney: The review on which you have placed so much weight is balanced with criticism and praise. As a matter of fact, Ms. Simpson is praised so choosing the single quote is both deceiving as well as harmful to your other praise for Simpson. The other review linked to the same page is far more complimentary of the movie with no criticisms:

"Cutting-edge filmmaking techniques coupled with the contributions of virtuoso artists such as Joni Mitchell, Patricia Arquette, Karen Black, Peter Coyote, Mimi Kennedy, Margot Kidder, Elizabeth Peña and Cindy Sheehan, elevates A Single Woman to transcend traditional biography."Review

There is also a wonderful comment in the Talkback section:

"Jeanmarie SimpsonFeb 24th, 2009 - 18:30:21

Thank you for that honest and sensitive critique. I hope we all share your enthusiasm for Jeannette Rankin's message of justice and peace being infinitely disseminated."

I would rather avoid this back and forth but I will not relent. JHScribe (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you are revealing yourself to be either woefully naive, or deeply dishonest. That "review" is a quote from the synopsis on the film's website.Webberkenny (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I'm confused. Why is there a "thanks" from Simpson in the talkback? But thanks for pointing me to the website where the link to a Bust Magazine article by Molly Simms states the film "...won raves after official screenings for the U.S. Congress, the Smithsonian and the U.N.".

But that's not the point. Both of these opinions do not meet the guideline Mr. Stradivarius set:

"...it is ok to have some criticism of the film in her (Lopez's) biography, but only from mainstream film critics, and there should not be too much weight on the criticism compared to the other coverage of the film. Criticism from Simpson should probably be limited to the article on the film itself..."

Either add a balanced view of the criticism or relent as the film does not merit this much attention. If it did, then the statement by Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal might be relevant -

“The world doesn’t need many of the biographical films that come my way, but this looks to be an exception. Jeanette Rankin is an extraordinary subject, and the prospect of a film that honors the sweep of her life is instantly intriguing.” [1]

...or Patricia Foulkrod, Producer/Director of The Ground Truth -

This is one of those rare gems – a film about a character in history, filled with passion and energy ... an amazing glimpse at our first elected woman to Congress, who had the courage to stand up and say no to war ... another war, and, yet, Kamala Lopez’s film mirrors so well our own struggles with this current war and saying no...and those who did not say no and went to war." [2]

Perhaps the ruling of an outside administrator (again) might be helpful?

JHScribe (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Question for administrator

This article is being vandalized and edited by someone close to the subject. 75.142.235.82 (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

--75.142.235.82 (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like nothing more then an editorial difference --Guerillero | My Talk 05:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious, if you look at the history. The subjects birth date, etc. should not be removed. The encyclopedic form has repeatedly been reduced in favor of resume/fan site material.75.142.235.82 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor claims the information is incorrect. Whether they're right or wrong, we should assume good faith on their part. Swarm ^X 00:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

{{admin help}} There is nothing here requiring admin attention. --Chris (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on! If it's incorrect, let's see some substantiation. I've watched this page for months and it is SO clear that a sock puppet is continually deleting information they find unflattering to the subject. This page needs to be monitored.75.142.235.82 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well what exactly do you want from an administrator? Swarm ^X 02:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at what exactly was going on in the page history, but as the indication was that the birthdate was incorrect, I have located a source and placed a citation; it was indeed incorrect (there are at least three other sources I found). Please note WP:BURDEN. If someone challenges material (and I'm not sure that was done here with the clarity we would want, i.e. en edit summary explaining the issue and exactly what information is disputed, as opposed to just blanking content one disputes, which looks no different than vandalism) then it should not be replaced. Rather, once the challenge issues, the burden is on the person wishing to add back to the material to source it using an inline citation. This is a fundamental Wikipedia policy and the reasoning is borne out here. It is a many times better to have less content than incorrect content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay - where did you find the correct info? I don't see a citation. 75.142.235.82 (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Right next to 1965 in the first sentence, which has also been changed in the infobox. If you are not seeing that then you are viewing an old version and need to clear your computer's cache memory. See WP:BYPASS for instructions, if you need them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's happening again. I agree it's a sock puppet - and s/he keeps trying to remove information about 'A Single Woman' that has been settled on, in addition to the birthdate, which is a minor issue, though again - shows personal concern. I'm glad to see you found three sources, but what are they? Why not back up the date with more than one citation? And is the year sufficient? Doesn't seem to comply with WP standards.Webberkenny (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would we need more than one citation for a birthdate? If you came upon an article with a cited birthdate, you would not normally say "wow, only one reliable source, we need more for such a fact." This is no different. That the article previously had a completely unsourced birthdate added by IP 67.1.13.187 is irrelevant. As for the year, we add what we can source — if only the year is known then "(born YEAR)" is what is placed. Though its examples are all for people who have died, see MOS:DOB for the principle. As For A Single Woman, I see the source verifying her direction of it is to a press release, so I have cited to a secondary reliable source. Let's see if the same person tries to remove information again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so now it looks like we do need more sources, as the same user has now blanked again, on the totally irrelevant basis of the source's language. Well at least he's talking in the edit summary, not just blanking content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Questioned

Someone close to the subject has repeatedly changed identities and has persisted in vandalism. Request that the page be locked.Webberkenny (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Normally we protect a page after other routes have failed. Most of the blanking has been by Chesterfieldman, but no one warned him or otherwise sought to discuss the issue with him, which is how you maybe get an understanding of what his issue actually is, and is the predicate for blocking. For warnings generally, please see WP:UTM. Here, the uw-delete series would have worked well ({{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}} etc.) I have now placed a tailored waring on his talk page. Meanwhile, multiple IPs have sought to improve this article so semi-protection would have a chilling effect and full protection stops all improvements of this still rudimentary article. Note also WP:AIV. See {{Reportvandal}} for how it works. All this is to say, I don't think protection is a good option at this point in time, given that the steps necessary to block the source of the problem were not done, though it might become warranted should matters develop.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. The page is looking a lot better now. I hope it can continue to improve. Webberkenny (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed the Neutrality template. Things seem to have calmed down, and the article does not seem neutrality-challenged. Josiewarvelle (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone close to the subject, if not the subject herself, is attempting to remove the birth date info, and threatening litigation. Why don't they just post the correct date? Anyway - restoring the template. Josiewarvelle (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the birthdate really all that relevant and important? Actors, especially female ones, are often very sensitive about their ages being revealed. Hollywood is a mean place for women of all ages, but especially women over 25. Careers start to decline much earlier for women than for men. Is there room for compassion here? Jeanmariesimpson (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

God is dead, apparently. God and Fuhghettaboutit, are, apparently, dead. Webberkenny (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Birthdate

I am related to the subject, and I am here to tell one and all that she was not born in 1965. The sources are incorrect. I have no idea from where they got the information, but it is not accurate. Jeanmariesimpson (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How do we know that you're related to the subject? —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As discussed on my talk page, that information is readily verifiable, and you have checked it out. Jeanmariesimpson (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We work by citing verifiable sources. If you have stronger sources to provide, please discuss them here. Repeatedly removing material could result in a block. Thank you Span (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried. The birthdate cited is incorrect. I suppose the only way to prove it is to provide a copy of the subject's birth certificate, and that seems like an egregious invasion of privacy. Carry on, I suppose.... Jeanmariesimpson (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Full references are provided for the birthdate in the article. At WP we work with verifiable sources, which are given. If there are any strong alternative sources to discuss, then great. So far none have been provided. Span (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the birth date and associated sources. As a matter of simple courtesy we have no problem removing personally identifiable information from biographies, so long as the information in question has no encyclopedic value and is irrelevant to the person's notability, work, etc. This is especially true for living people. So I suggest everyone concentrate on improving other aspects of the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a straightforward question to me. I can appreciate that this is a BLP and we might remove the birth date if it is contentiously sourced. Various books state the birth date but Jeanmariesimpson, close to Lopez, now says all the books got it wrong. However, as you will see, higher up the talk page she wrote "Is the birthdate really all that relevant and important? Actors, especially female ones, are often very sensitive about their ages being revealed. Hollywood is a mean place for women of all ages, but especially women over 25. Careers start to decline much earlier for women than for men." There seem to be at least two editors who have regularly worked on the article that are close to or related to the subject. Conflict of interest questions have been raised on the talk page since the article's inception. It all seems very muddy. There is a mess somewhere in here for sure. I would say that an authentic date of birth is of the highest "encyclopaedic value" - for Charles Dickens, Marie Curie, Kamala Lopez or anyone else. Actresses very often get antsy about their birthdate being published on Wikipedia. I've seen it countless times - trying to knock off ten years. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I think there's more to the response than removing a birthdate as a "simple courtesy". Span (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument, and I don't know that it was sourced contentiously or not, but I removed it as a courtesy to the subject, not in response to a content or sourcing dispute. Whether she is getting antsy about her age or not (and I don't deny that might be the case), her birth date neither adds nor detracts from the overall article. When and if her age becomes an issue of importance worthy of documenting then it won't matter who requests it or why, but that's not the case now. As for COI, I'm just getting wind of that by looking at the article history however, I don't have that problem. This was done in response to the bio being included at WP:BLP/N, that's all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the bottom line is that Lopez has requested via OTRS to have the birthdate removed (not changed) and it has been done, in accordance with her wishes, re BLP policy. Span (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I will undo my last edit that restored the birthdate. Webberkenny (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kamala Lopez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121105233933/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-interviews/-Kamala-Lopez-defends-womens-rights/articleshow/9368696.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-interviews/-Kamala-Lopez-defends-womens-rights/articleshow/9368696.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kamala Lopez. 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/20150402095739/http://www.more.com/news/womens-issues/focusing-public-awareness-womens-rights to http://www.more.com/news/womens-issues/focusing-public-awareness-womens-rights
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315114848/http://www.molaa.com/index.aspx to http://www.molaa.com/index.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214020615/http://www.nwpc.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=10 to http://www.nwpc.org/civicrm/event/info?id=10&reset=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030230359/http://www.bhlife.org/winners.htm to http://www.bhlife.org/winners.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150308080830/http://laccw.lacounty.gov/Events/AnnualEvents/WomenoftheYear.aspx to http://laccw.lacounty.gov/Events/AnnualEvents/WomenoftheYear.aspx

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) 15:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)