Talk:Leah Hunt-Hendrix
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Article created
editI've created this article with three references; one an article written by the subject for the Huffington Post, the other two independent sources written months apart by professional journalists in independent publications (Salon and the Wall Street Journal).
Note that Occupy Wall Street is an ongoing movement, not a single event. Also note that the subject of the article has an established history of participation in social activism, even before the Occupy movement began, as can be seen from her author page in the Huffington Post. She also has an academic specialty and doctoral research topic related to activism, as can be seen from the cited article by Rothbaum in the Wall Street Journal. There is every reason to expect that she will continue to be in the news; any claimed expectation to the contrary would be a triumph of deletionism over reason and common sense. It shouldn't even be necessary to point these things out at all. Deletionism is a deplorable blight upon Wikipedia. But since it has prevailed and its miserable standards must be met, there you have it.
Credentials of Rebecca Rothbaum
editIn case anyone doubts that Rebecca Rothbaum is a real journalist, please check her author page at The Atlantic. (Again, more otherwise-pointless but sadly necessary defensive editing against deletionism.)
Reply to comments from user talk page
editHello! This comment is a reply to a question on a user talk page. Responding here so future editors can find this discussion, and pinging @Grammarmonkey3.
Regarding the thesis, you're definitely right that the current citation is fine to prove that the thesis exists and what it talks about. The reason I added the template requesting a better source is because I'm not convinced that the thesis needs to be mentioned in the article at all. Wikipedia articles aren't resumes, nor do they need to include every available detail about someone's life. However, if secondary, independent sources have covered or discussed Hunt-Hendrix's thesis, that would demonstrate that it's worth mentioning in the article, and those would be better sources.
The template at the top of the page doesn't necessarily say that you have a COI, but it does say that many of the article's sources are too closely associated with the subject. The reason I added that is because a lot of the article's information is not cited to secondary sources. Articles such as the Avenue, WSJ, Salon, Politico, and SF Chronicle sources are great. But most of the other sources are websites of organizations she's founded or serves on the board of, press releases, or articles written by Hunt-Hendrix herself. These are not independent sources. Individually, they're fine if used to verify particular facts, but collectively, having an article rely too heavily on them can result in a non-NPOV or too much detail. Again, the best benchmark for whether something should be included in a Wiki article is whether secondary, independent sources have covered it. I hope this is a helpful explanation - please ask questions if there's anything that isn't clear. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)