Talk:Phyllis Zagano

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://people.hofstra.edu/phyllis_zagano/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Extended off-topic content

Without much trouble I found a half dozen uses of the LDS Family Search genealogy database in longstanding Wikipedia entries. You're misinterpreting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources It would be applicable if I went to New York and accessed primary birth records. The LDS website uses a third party aggregator as described at the reference. In addition when you deleted the date of birth this time, you deleted the place of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC) "no way of knowing whether that record relates to this person)" - Justlettersandnumbers There is only one Phyllis Zagano in the United States: http://www.whitepages.com/name/Phyllis-Zagano http://find.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&formname=name&qf=phyllis&qmi=&qn=zagano&qcs=&focusfirst=1 etc, etc I am not sure why this Zagano article has turned into a p-ssing contest, but I am going to restore this if you don't present something more profound in the next 24 hours or so. Eblem (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC) See e.g. the short discussions here and here for why the source you are citing is not a reliable source. --JBL (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Those "short discussions" are just that - discussions citing opposing positions. If you can't cite a Wikipedia "decision" you're simply taking a contra position. Again, this Zagano article is becoming a p-ssing contest for reasons that simply elude me. Wikipedia is rife with completely unsourced DOBs and numerous others using the same source I cited. Eblem (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC) WP:BLPPRIMARY is the "decision" you're asking for. I used it in my edit summaries if you would only look. You may also want to consult WP:OTHERSTUFF while you're at it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC) It would be if the reference were a primary source. It is not. I am all for submitting this to dispute resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Eblem (talk I can live with whatever comes out of that. Btw, what "profanity"? "P-ssing contest" isn't profane (obscene, lewd or abusive) even spelled out. If it is, you better see about this Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissing_contest Eblem (talk) Eblem (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)22:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC) You're kind of suffering from WP:IDHT but if you are willing to open a DRN case and abide by the decision reached, I'm all for it. Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Calling "p-ssing contest" profanity could be Exhibit A in an article on WP:IDHT. Do you want to submit it and end everyone's "suffering"? Eblem (talk) 50.190.158.171 (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC) A reliable secondary source is one which has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Does familysearch.org cross-check the records they aggregate? Elizium23 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC) The answer to this question is "no." See e.g. the two discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard that I linked to above. --JBL (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC) I would suggest you two open a DRN case. The only two folks you're convincing is each other, and I am afraid I decline to join the mutual admiration society. --Eblem (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC) No, I'm convinced too. What we have here is a minority of one, Eblem, who appears unwilling to accept the WP:BLP policy and referencing norms of this project. Eblem, there's consensus here not to include that source as a reference for her place and date of birth; if you disagree with that I suggest taking it to the BLP noticeboard. You say there's only one Phyllis Zagano in the US, but the very source you want to include lists a "Phyllis Zagano" as a relative of that Phyllis Zagano. There's no way of knowing if either or neither of those is the one this page is about. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) The fact that you're convinced, too, is another datum in support of opening a DRN case. We have three true believers who have made it crystal clear that there will be no discussion. If you want me to round up four editors who see it my way and swing the consensus the other way, which is what you, Joel B Lewis, and Elizium23 have been doing in more than one context, that is doable, but all it would prove is that there is no consensus. I just took another look and there was no "'Phyllis Zagano' as a relative of that Phyllis Zagano". It simply listed all the names associated with that entry, including her own. (Personal attack removed) -- Eblem (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC) A personal attack meets the following criterion: "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. However, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.) Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Threats, including, but not limited to: Threats of legal action Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats) Threats of vandalism Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why. Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor. These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." To point out that someone is not even listening in support of requesting outside arbitration through the use of the colloquial "sticking one's fingers in one's ears" is no more a personal attack than referring to a "pissing contest" is profanity.--Eblem (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A Secondary Source Zagano's birthdate and place of birth are listed "Phyllis Zagano was born in Queens, New York, on August 25, 1947" in the finding aid[2] for her papers at the Women and Leadership Archives, Loyola University Chicago. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Good find! I see you have already added it to the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

vandalism of Phyllis Zagano article

Repeated vandalism of Phyllis Zagano article has stripped it of much neutral content. See: https://people.hofstra.edu/Phyllis_Zagano/ and compare 96.232.105.97 (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

IP editor, please be extremely careful not to make false accusations – that can lead to loss of editing privileges. There's been no vandalism of this page (that I can see, anyway). What there has been, on the other hand, is an endless and tedious series of attempts to insert inappropriate and unencyclopaedic promotional content about this person, which have sucked up large amounts of volunteer time. In almost every case, those attempts have been made by someone using the IP address 96.232.105.97 – your address, in fact. There've also been similar edits from the Vatican (212.77.3.51), and from an IP address in France. The behaviour strongly suggests that the people behind those addresses have a personal or professional connection to Zagano. If so, they should not make any edit to the article itself, but request changes here, on the talk-page – see the section immediately above this for instructions on how to do that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the vandaliam has been by Justlettersandnumbers, who seems obsessed with Zagano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.105.97 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Change Boston University College of Communications to Boston University College of Communication 74.101.106.194 (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The category is currently titled Category:Boston University College of Communications alumni. No change can be made to the article at this time. I'll look into the situation and see if category maintenance needs done. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Phyllis! Elizium23 (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Phyllis Zagano's page

The only point I see here is in the first paragraph, "She has written and spoken on the role of women in the Roman Catholic Church and is an advocate for the ordination of women as deacons." I would rephrase this to say: She writes and speaks on the role of women in the Catholic Church. Her research is primarily about the arguments, pro and con, around the diaconate in the Catholic Church to ordain women deacons.

This is the only place where there is a non-neutral point of view.

Janice Leah Poss (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)janicelp

Janicelp, every article I have seen her pop up in has her advocating for women in the diaconate. I don't see how that is inaccurate. Elizium23 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly true, but that was the only apparent non-neutral issue I could see on page, other than it appears there are some copyright issues as well. In spite of the other sources that say this about her advocacy, it might not be appropriate in this case. I am part of the 1000 Women in Religion project and am going to ask some of them who have more experience with this kind of thing what can be done. Thanks so much for your quick reply.

Janice Leah Poss (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)janicelp

@Janice Leah Poss: Per the guidance at WP:DETAG, WP:WTRMT, and WP:BEBOLD, if you believe the issue identified by the tag has been resolved, you may simply remove the tag. --JBL (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear JBL, Perhaps, but it seems there are other issues -- copyright and conflicts of interest? Not sure, but am communicating with other editors on our project to see what we can do to clean up this page. I also am pretty new to all this, so not quite sure how I could delete a tag. I'm nervous about touching others work. Thanks for your help. Janice Leah Poss (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)janicelp

@Janice Leah Poss: The COI issue here is that the subject of the article has, on-and-off for years, edited the article, mistaking a biographical article for a personal CV. This finally ended 15 months ago when the article was protected from anonymous edits (Zagano has an account but had just been editing without logging in -- the account was last used in 2015). There have been copyright issues in the past, but nothing on the article is currently tagged as being a copyright violation, and I am not aware of any such content in the current version -- are you? Let me ping @Justlettersandnumbers:, who added the tag, to get their opinion, but really I think that, if the article does not seem promotional to you, you should just remove the tag. If you are looking at the article source, the tag is the first line {{COI|date=July 2018}}; removing that will remove the notice. You are definitely being more cautious than necessary :). Of course, making improvements to the article (independent of the tag) would also be welcome. --JBL (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear JBL, Thanks, yes, I am in contact with Ms. Zagano for other matters. She brought what's going on with her page. I surmised that she was editing this herself and I told her that she could not do that. Also that because I know her, I can't do any editing myself because of COI. I will remove the warning box on top. This will help for sure. Absolutely, I am suggesting to our team that we can work on improving her page when we do our edit-a-thons. She's done a lot of work on her topic in her academic life and this needs to be reflected better on her page. I truly appreciate your feedback and help on this. I don't have too much time with this right now, but I do what I can and I have much to learn. Thank you. ````janicelp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janicelp (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope you realize how it kinda looks bad that someone with a declared COI would remove the COI tag from the article? Yeah, even if we agree, that's where you put in a request and have someone impartial do it. I've tagged all of Zagano's sockpuppets and added them to the {{connected contributor}} list at the top of this talk page, which cannot be removed by anyone. I look forward to working with you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That being said, I've just given the article a once-over and I concur with the removal of the COI tag as it has not been sufficiently tainted to affect its neutrality. Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)