Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:11, 3 May 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Literature This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Lynn Neary (2013-04-29). "What's In A Category? 'Women Novelists' Sparks Wiki-Controversy". National Public Radio. Amanda Filipacchi (2013-04-24). "Misplaced Pages's Sexism Toward Female Novelists". New York Times. Sierra Schellenberg (2013-04-30). "Misplaced Pages Sexism: Amanda Filipacchi is Owed An Apology". PolicyMic.

Image copyright problem with Image:Cover of Nude Men.jpg

The image Image:Cover of Nude Men.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

External links consistent with Misplaced Pages policy

The external links in this article provide additional information about the subject, including a recent Op-Ed the subject wrote for The New York Times complaining about the classificaiton of her work in this Misplaced Pages article.

• No. See WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Qworty (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• No, Qworty. It is not WP:SPAM. You removed a link to the subject's New York Times Op-Ed link. She followed up with a second Op-Ed where she complained about YOUR removal of her links. That link was highly relevant to understanding who she is and what she stands for. I presume good faith on your part and will leave to you to do the right thing and revert your change. EddieVega (talk)

Banner tags untidy and unnecessary

There are unnessary banners in this article that give it an untidy appearance.

• There's only one now, and it's highly necessary that its advice be followed before it is removed. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Is she a woman, and a novelist?

If so, she should remain in Category:American women novelists and Category:French women novelists until such time as the CFD for Category:American women novelists is complete. I have no argument with putting her in the parent cats as well (i.e. Category:American novelists, Category:French novelists). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Bullshit. Of course she's a woman and a novelist. She also has two legs. I suppose. And other things, in this case related to womanhood--or perhaps you'd say, given your adherence to the newly gendered category system, that she's lacking a certain thing.

  If I invent a category and its implementation causes worldwide controversy, perhaps it's a good idea to revert to the previous state. I'd gladly enter a discussion with you if you didn't claim, basically, "the category exists so she should be in it and fuck the consequences." No wonder people think we're sexist morons. They may be wrong in thinking so, but thumbing their nose at them is of no help. You know who this person is, right? Shouldn't you be doing something to remove this appearance of sexism, rather than regendering her with every useless edit you make in this article? Drmies (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course I know who she is - that's why we should be quite clear on the categorization here, so that if she sees this article, she will know she was not treated any differently from anyone else with a bio on wikipedia. And you are sadly misinformed - she has always been "gendered" as you say - as of an old rev long before this all came to light, she was listed in at least 3 separate 'women' categories. Her "sexism" argument was not that people were in the woman novelist cat, but that they were was no longer in the novelist cat - as you can see, Amanda remains in the parent cats of Category:American novelists and Category:French novelists, so her current categorization is in line with both policy and bulk of the discussants at CFD. Get off your white knight horse and start reading diffs, it might help you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just created Category:American humor novelists and moved her to that one. I am not sure if that is the best way to describe her work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did find multiple articls that described things as "humor novels" and was able toquickly add three new people to the category, none of whom had been in Category:American novelists and all of whom were men. So the claim by this author that we had all American men novelists in ] no matter how obscure was just plain false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

She's both. I believe she identifies a a woman. It'd be nice to have her in the woman's category and other categories. Thanks. SarahStierch (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't put her in both, that defeats the whole purpose of subcategorization. Yet, if you can't see gender subcategorization as implicitly discriminatory, I'm not sure anyone can help you understand it :) Just use genre subcategorization and move on if we feel the category of American Authors is too voluminous. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of women's studies - and as an academic - I believe that these categories are important. But, whatever. As a woman, what do I know. (I surely know I don't speak on behalf of all women, but, I'm not sure who here in this conversation is a woman, but so far I haven't met a woman who thinks the category should be deleted)SarahStierch (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, why do you think I'm not a woman? Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said "I'm not sure who here in this conversation is a woman." I just haven't met someone, openly a woman on Misplaced Pages, who has told me to the point "the women's blah category should be deleted." It's very valuable for people interested in feminism and women's studies. But, hey, that's okay I'm not here to argue. No matter how anyone fo any gender feels, I hate arguing about this stuff. It's been one of the most depresing conversations and situations I've had - even after a year as the gender gap fellow at Wikimedia - I'm going to stop watching this article now. :) Good luck! SarahStierch (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and many born and non-born women do chose masculine names for the sake of feeling more comfortable contributing, so you never do know. But, Jeremy isn't known for being a feminine name. SarahStierch (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• American humor novelists is now created? of for fucks sake, lambert, I can't deal with your bullshit anymore. You're not helping the project by creating all these categories to mask the problem.--Milowent • 05:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, blinking hard--wow. Can we have some WP:CIVIL, please? Qworty (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

NO, you cannot! I cannot stand by and watch the project dragged thru the mud like this. Indeed, JPL should NOT be editing this article AT ALL. The article subject has directly questioned JPL's editing history, as a major proponent of the american women's novelist category. There's a clear bias issue that we have to avoid. The subject has already written in the New York Times about how her article has come under attack for her first op-ed.. What happened to the days when admins would put a stop to stuff like this?--Milowent • 05:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Admins aren't going to touch this. They're too terrified of the NYTimes. They're like the cops during the LA riots, just watching with their nightsticks held behind their backs. The fact is that this author has had four articles about her on Misplaced Pages for years, and all four of them have been primarily WP:PROMO WP:PEACOCK WP:ADVERT. Where are the admins who are eager to clean that up? Then she has the gall to complain about her articles, when Misplaced Pages has been providing free advertising for her for years, in violation of Misplaced Pages policies. She doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works. But like a lot of people who've tried to use Misplaced Pages to promote themselves over the years, she is learning fast. Qworty (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree the articles on her and her novels had problems, but there are a million things one can do around here, and I knew better than to work on them during the controversy. Because it would likely backfire. Most people don't know how wikipedia works, but they read it, and then deny that they ever read it :-).--Milowent • 05:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

re: Category:American humor novelists - she's no longer in this category, and I've also nominated the category itself to merge up to the parents - I don't think it's needed. Feel free to weigh in here Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_28#Category:American_humor_novelists. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages continues attack on Amanda Filipacchi

After a second New York Times Op-Ed article by Amanda Filipacchi appeared that was critical of the removal of links in the Misplaced Pages article about her and arguably sexist classifications of her work by Misplaced Pages editors, a Misplaced Pages editor with the handle of Qworty began a campaign of editing articles about Filipacchi's novels that are negative in tone and deepen the impression that Misplaced Pages is at war with women writers. Misplaced Pages may also have engaged in censorship when the same editor removed a link to Filipaachi's first New York Times article wherein she complained about Misplaced Pages's unfortunate gender-based reclassification of her work that she saw as evidence of sexist bias. Additionally, the timing of the edits may indicate they are retaliatory in nature and that the editor is not acting with the neutral point of view required by Misplaced Pages guidelines. Additionally, the contentious tone of the editor's remarks in the article's talk section regarding Amanda Filipacchi suggest the editor has a personal animus against her.

This is what the editor wrote (emphasis my own):

"Admins aren't going to touch this. They're too terrified of the NYTimes. They're like the cops during the LA riots, just watching with their nightsticks held behind their backs. The fact is that this author has had four articles about her on Misplaced Pages for years, and all four of them have been primarily WP:PROMO WP:PEACOCK WP:ADVERT. Where are the admins who are eager to clean that up? Then she has the gall to complain about her articles, when Misplaced Pages has been providing free advertising for her for years, in violation of Misplaced Pages policies. She doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works. But like a lot of people who've tried to use Misplaced Pages to promote themselves over the years, she is learning fast. Qworty (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)" EddieVega (talk)

Nice locating this. I will quick patrol the Filipacchi books (having read them). -Aerolit (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I put the title in quotes since it's fictional. "Misplaced Pages is at war with women writers. Misplaced Pages may also have engaged in censorship..." is a bunch of boloney. Misplaced Pages is not at war with women writers, though it may appear that we're a bunch of idiots (and that is hard to deny). "Censorship" is usually the rallying call of those who don't know their ass from their elbow, and that seems to be the case here. Someone can probably find a half a dozen policies within a minute for why that editorial shouldn't be linked in this page--and CENSORSHIP is not one of them.

  Qworty's tone is usually a bit direct, but that's because they're dealing with an enormous bunch of crap from WP:BLPN, and it's plain to see for any (experienced) WP editor that the article was, well, a mess, and totally not in agreement with our policies. I could go into detail, but next thing you know I'm on the NYT blog as well. I've also tried to clean this article up some, and I've added a couple of sources from here and there, but the fact is, and Filipacchi will see this if she looks at a bunch of articles from living authors, that too many of them don't follow our guidelines and in many cases function as little more than invitations to call the agent or repositories of links to online poems etc. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Two points: I removed the quotes that Drmies added. That heading is not fiction and does not need quotation marks. That's not coming just from the pages of the NY Times but also from Forbes ("Yes, Misplaced Pages Is Sexist -- That's Why It Needs You."); The Week, ("Sexist' Misplaced Pages relegates female authors to a category of their own"); The Independent ("Misplaced Pages in sexism row after labeling Harper Lee and others 'women novelists' while men are 'American novelists'); and a growing number of legacy outlets. The kind of sexism Misplaced Pages practiced here is a hard and ugly fact and very easy to see for anyone with a cold eye. The Misplaced Pages editors engaged in a pattern of sexist editorial classifications and now want to pretend it is something else. As for the censorship, I don't use that word lightly. That is what occurred here. The link to Filipaachi's first New York Times article complaining about that same pattern of sexist behavior was removed, and after her second article appeared critical of the removal of the first article, a Misplaced Pages editor, with the handle of Qworty, the very same editor who had removed the NY Times link, began a series of retaliatory edits on several articles about her novels. At the time he made these retaliatory edits, he referred to her "gall" in writing that second piece complaining about the removal of the link. That is censorship. Then to undermine an editor who called him on it -- me -- he put up a COI banner making accusations of a conflict of interest and of lacking viewpoint neutrality. That was another retaliatory strike. Do you want an example of a real conflict of interest? Writing about a subject with whom you have a personal beef. And Qworty has one with her, evidenced by his own words right here on this page. I don't need to go outside this very page for proof of his personal animus against her. Lastly, saying that he is being merely "direct" or perhaps inartful, is to miss the rationale he is following to retaliate against her New York Times articles. And that brings us back to censorship. EddieVega (talk)
  • What you've seen here is editing, and editing disputes (between Obi Wankenobi and myself, for instance). Nothing here is "censorship". Removal of those articles/links was done because they simply do not conform to our principles of article writing. Someone writes an article in the NYT, great, but there's no need to link that in an encyclopedic article. Not everything is encyclopedic. If this turns out to remain a big thing, and if reliable sources say that Filipacchi got the ball rolling, it will be in here. But we're not the news.

    In your advocacy you may have missed that I actually agree with many of the points she made in the first op-ed; the second one, which probably refers to you as the kind spirit who restored a bunch of linkage, not so much. But I do agree with the basic points about categorization and the appearance of ghettoization, and it's obvious that Obi and I disagree, and that there's widespread disagreement. But to claim censorship just because the article is getting a good scrubbing, pff. FYI, you can't pull any wool over my head: I've written over 700 articles here, many on literary topics, and many biographies (you may be interested in Laura Zigman, which was on the front page last year). In general I fully support Qworty's edits, though there may be disagreements on individual points. And from what I see Qworty's problem is not with the author personally but with the article on the author. And with you, of course. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Drmies, Qworty's problem was with the author. It was her "gall" that had so outraged him. His word. Directed at no one else but the author. He became upset with me becuase I called him on it. Sorry, but I will not remain silent in the face of a bully, no matter how loud he might be. Clearly, as you say, in general you have little problem with his behavior though I'd be surprised if you were ok with the embarassment he has caused the Misplaced Pages community, which is doing great good in the world and promises nothing less than the transformation of global research and the sharing of information. I respect your right to hold the position you do. All of my points above were factually based; he said what he said and he did what did at the times he did. No wool. Just facts. And as someone who is clearly an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, you should be more sensitive than most about how such behavior can be percieved. Qworty decries the author's "gall" for calling out his edits in The New York Times and then starts littering articles about her work with banners and lumps her with "people who've tried to use Misplaced Pages to promote themselves over the years," a slanderous accusation based on zero evidence. The timing may be coincidental, his words rash, and his actions lock & key, but together there is no way of avoiding the conclusion that his editing was both punitive and retaliatory. And any efforts to rehabilite it simply by waving the magic wand of denial and saying that his edits were not censorious and consistent with Misplaced Pages guidelines will just not wash. As my grandmother wisely asked, tell me who you stand with and I'll tell you who you are. I do not stand with bullies. Especially when they are trying to silence someone trying to correct a wrong, not only to herself but to women writers everywhere. EddieVega (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • And then you went ahead and called me a bully. Nice. Since when is removing a link to an external article "censorship"? Sounds like you're taking a lot of things for granted, and like you've forgotten that this, ahem, is not a free-speech zone but just another website, albeit one with certain policies and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Drmies, I called you a bully becuase you kept reverting a banner on an article about one of Amanda Filipacchi's novels that accused me of a COI. First, facing down bullies who are engaged in punitive attacks is not a COI. I have no connecton to the subject author that would consitute a COI; however, I do have a deep empathy for someone who is being treated in a very shabby way. Secondly, I was no longer a contributor to the talk page becuase I removed my comments after the issues affecting the article were resolved. So I was no longer a contributor. Hence the banner was placed for several improper reasons. Yet you kept putting it back in. Were you trying to bully me into silence? That's not cricket. Now compounding the problem is that Qworty is back to vandalising the page and reinserting the banner. But this is part of his modus operandi, I hope not yours. In his excellent Salon article "Misplaced Pages's Shame," reporter Andrew Leonard examined Qworty's role in what he called "revenge editing" and found even worse and more widespread misconduct. Is this the kind of behavior you want to support? I hope not.
    • Eddie, you seem very upset. I don't know any of these editors (Qworty, Drmies), and in fact Drmies and I have some disagreements on other topics. However, looking at the edits they and others have made, this is all very much par for the course - wikipedia is sort of like tennis (back/forth/back/forth), it's not like golf (e.g. carefully plan your shot, measure the wind, have a nice practice swing, then sink a hole in one). If Ms. Filipacchi knew anything about wikipedia (and it seems she did, noting that she knew her bio would get edited), she should have expected this - this is not about retaliatory editing, this is about a massive increase in the number of editors viewing and watching her page - and in these cases, no stone is left unturned, and no wiki-law left un-applied. This same thing would happen whether she had written glowing praise or damning scorn of wikipedia. Some edits may go a bit too far, but there are so many watchers, those edits will be undone - for example, I undid some of Qworty's edits soon after he made them; other eds have come along and sourced things, etc. There are WikiGnomes and WikiDragons and lots of other fauna besides, all with different editing styles and approaches - it's really the end result which counts, and IMHO the article today is much better than it was a few weeks ago, its tone is much more neutral and it sounds much less like a jacket blurb.

What I'd encourage you to think about is, what do you hope to gain by your large, dramatic text blocks above? (Also, fwiw, please edit once, using the preview key, and post once - rather than posting umpteen tiny updates to your comments - that makes it really hard to keep track of what's going on)

Would you like to drag some of the editors in front of their peers, and have them admonished? Get some of them banned? A stern talking to? What result do you desire here?

Misplaced Pages editing is a rather brutal process, so at first it may seem heartless but I guarantee you, this same treatment is meted out on almost every article, no matter who it's about - especially if the article gets attention. Take a look at this graph, and you'll see how much attention this one has gotten:. The push and pull results in a good article at the end, which is what we have now. Why not focus on the article itself, not the talk pages, and find better sources/interviews/articles/whatever that are interesting and add further flavor and establish her (and her novels') notability and significance. That will be much more productive than railing on here about sexist practices - on that I'm afraid your sorely mistaken, take a look at the CFD for Category:American women novelists to see the community process in action. Category diffusion != sexism...if you want to see why, try to take my quiz (and ask Ms. Filipacchi to take it too! That would be awesome), and we'll see how well you guys score. Can you avoid a "sexist" or "racist" categorization?? Try your luck... but I warn you, it's hard. Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Correct_categorization_quiz --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Obi Wan, like your cinematic namesake, your words are thoughtful. And right on many points. On the sexist classifications, we will have to disagree, but that is of little consequence since, as I understand it, the misclassifications that Amanda Filipacchi complained about in her NYT Op-Ed have been largely resolved and will continue to be improved as more women writers are moved back to the parent category where they belong. The end result of this unfortunate fracas are cleaner and better sourced articles, and I hope greater senstitivy in the Misplaced Pages community about gender-based classifications. That's something I know most of us want. It shows that Misplaced Pages's policy to move by consensus is a strength even when some editors engage in practices that make the entire enterprise seem questionable. By the way, I posted a response to another of your messages on another talk page where you also extended an invitation to contribute more fully to Misplaced Pages. I am taking you up on it. Lastly, as for the dramatic bolding of the word censorship, it was a way of highlighting a critical point about the actual practice of censorship which was in fact what occurred here. And there seemed efforts to explain it away as something other than what it was. But the Misplaced Pages community came together, including persons such as yourself, and resolved the underlying problem by removing the punitive edits. I no longer see the need for the bold text and have normalized it. The proces worked. For now. However, the problem caused by rogue editors seems to run far deeper than your comments let on, as journalist Andrew Leonard points out in his Salon article; it also undermines any suggestion that the editors' work was "par for the course." I don't think any reasonable person would hold that so called "revenge editing" is par for the course for any enterprise that values the principle of neutrality. The larger question is how does an organization that moves by consensus resolve long-term problems caused by rogue editors who are driven by obsessive anger and who promise to exact revenge on anyone who questions their behavior? EddieVega (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an article talkpage, and by now this has nothing to do with article improvement. Please take it elsewhere.

Peter 00:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be prudent to semi-protect the article. NPR has picked up the NYT version of the story, even money, other media outlets will as well.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh oh. Be prepared for the invasion of the Eleanor Beardsley fan club.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Cut the edit warring Eddit and Qworty

Or I will invoke 3RR and drag you both before ANI. They don't take kindly to revert wars. Until additional proof is provided, don't either of you add the 'conflicted person' tag to the top please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Pot, kettle? Drmies (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops - sorry I thought I had reverted twice on Amanda Filipacchi but it could also be interpreted as reverting 3 times. Mea culpa - and yes I'm a bit of a pot here :) Nonetheless, the talk page tagging was reverted at least 4 times I think before it stopped... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries--I'm not about to drag you anywhere, nor you me I suppose. And you are right: this tag-fighting needs to stop. I'm looking at that edit war right now and have asked Qworty if there's evidence for the COI tag; it may be over at BLPN or anywhere else (I'm not going to block over it, though if you like you could slap 3R warnings on their talk pages). If there isn't any, obviously the other tag should go too. BTW, I'm sure you read Filipacchi's most recent article in the NYT. :) Drmies (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this one? or was there another? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, just to clear the air, with this edit , which you undid here: , you may have had the impression I was removing her from Category:American novelists - but in fact, American novelists already existed (I just removed a dupe), and your edit just served to put her in the same cat twice. I just want to be clear that in my edits to this article, I never removed her from Category:American novelists, even though diffs seem to suggest that; because that same cat was duplicated. This was in line with policy, which states that such cats should not be diffused - anyway sorry if my diffs were confusing on that point and on my intentions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Template Template:BLP sources still needed?

It would appear this template is no longer needed, at least given the level of protection, but perhaps I am mistaken. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please can you reason why you don't consider it needed? Protection is an independent issue. There are some sources that are required but lets avoid big banner tags as there's attention and discussion here already which is the purpose of the tags, and inline use instead may be more effective:

• direct quotes need refs per WP:QUOTE / WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
  • Reviewers{{which}} have called Filipacchi “fearsomely witty,” and “a prodigious postfeminist talent.“{{cn}}
  • The New York Times as a "lovely comic surrealist.”{{cn}}
• BLP unsourced issue liking a source:
  • She has been living in New York since she was 17.{{cn}}

All of this can be fixed now.

• "fearsomely witty" (from a review of Nude Men) is sourced to the Village Voice in the front matter of Love Creeps:.
• "a prodigious postfeminist talent" in Publishers Weekly.
• Bio page at amandafilipacchi.com, acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE.

--Carwil (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Purely for the record, since you asked, my reasoning was that I did not see any contentious statements needing sourcing (and trusted that semi-protection would guard against any being added) and that any other sourcing issues could be dealt with inline as you noted. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead too short

This could be doubled at least to cover the main topics. Widefox; talk 09:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Current events header needed

As it stands, the transition from biography to current events is unmarked by a header. Something like "Misplaced Pages sexism controversy" would be a neutral choice. Along the same lines, it would be good to add some WP:RS uninvolved commentators on same such as Yes, Misplaced Pages Is Sexist -- That's Why It Needs You. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• We don't encourage "controversy" sections. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this section really necessary? It unbalances the article - surely her novels are of far greater importance - in favour of a single current event. WP:NOTNEWS would seem to apply. Euchrid (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Background analysis is not news, so it doesn't fall under that guideline. A group of journalists writing op-eds is not what you'd call an "event" - the rationale for NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. "WP:UNDUE weight" may be, but I find the current one-paragraph adequate to the level of buzz found on the net; or it could be merged with other similar incidents into a sub-section or sub-article of Criticism of Misplaced Pages. Diego (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed policy, I agree that integrating this information, as we are now doing, rather than calling out a new section, as I initially suggested, is the best approach. I also concur that the current paragraph treatment with independent sources added is not WP:UNDUE. Subsequent developments, if any, could no doubt affect how much treatment is due. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A good article by James Gleick in the New York Review of Books explaining the classification and other issues can be found at Misplaced Pages’s Women Problem. I'd at it as a reference, myself, but lack the necessary privileges given the semi-protection. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Salon.com error about talkpage

Please note that the article "Misplaced Pages's shame" claims to quote this talkpage. Except it doesn't. Both quote batches are from Qworty's talkpage.

Peter 10:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• True enough. Naturally, I WP:DGAF, but I'm curious about one thing: Since you've criticized the Salon piece so much, why did you add it as a source to this article? I'm not contesting the sourcing. I'm just curious as to your thinking. Thanks, and best wishes, Qworty (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite upset about how NYT and Salon has described this, but I'm not going to give anyone the chance to say Misplaced Pages is trying to tone down or engage in polemics against Filipacchi's accusations in article space. I pointed out the error in quoting only because Sara Stierch added Salon as a press mention but without knowing they had botched the quote.

Btw, your behavior is pretty much what triggered all this "revenge editing" crap. With those rants of yours, you managed to confirm sloppy reporting and misunderstandings from Filipacchi. Any chance you're going to show any open remorse about that?

Peter 11:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Writing began at age 13

The lead says "She began writing at age thirteen" and this appears (maybe it is said elsewhere?) to be attributed to the subject's own website. BarrellProof removed this and said "cited source does say this, but it seems implausible. Most kids begin writing at about age five, and writing stories is a common schoolwork assignment much earlier than 13" and Kmhkmh restored this text reasoning "the source need to be understood in context, here it means writing articles/stories on her own beyond the chool curriculum /homework". Insertion of this text is obviously intended to make the point that this writing is of the precocious variety. While it may be true this BLP's writing of this period was beyond the norm, the only verification of this writing is attributed is a primary source. Extraordinary claims require sourcing independant of the subject, so I have removed the text until this claim can be reliably sourced.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not saying this cite supports "started writing at 13" on its own, but Kathryn Harrison did call her a "sublimely precocious writer." 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not the kind of thing we can cite--it's a blurb (I suppose this is where an earlier "fearsomely witty" came from?) and if it's to be cited it should come from an independent source. BTW, it seems to me that the blurb makes the comment in relation to Nude Men being her debut. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a secondary source (New York magazine); I've used the vague "writing fiction" since it's the obvious gloss for the paragraph, and I've also paraphrased their other comments on her teenage authorship.--Carwil (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't drop by this section to dispute that "writing at 13" thing since that's of little concern to me--it was the blurb that caught my attention, since I just removed one from the article that was cited as a reference. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ten-year-olds routinely write a lot of fiction. I doubt she actually waited until she was 13 before writing any fiction. I also suggest that it is strange to invent modified versions of what the source says in order to make it sound more reasonable. I suggest just deleting the sentence, since it seems unnecessary to the article and it is unclear what the sentence is actually trying to say. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

After a bit of further thought, I amended it to say she "developed a strong interest in fiction writing" at age 13, which I think is probably what the source intended to say. Does that seem OK? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem OK to me. The NYMag source says explicitly that she started writing at the age of 13. No interpretation needed. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop pushing it. It's just that most people start writing at a much earlier age than that. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Are you thinking of the verb "to write" as meaning "to put letters on paper" in this sentence? It seems obvious in the context that it means "to create original compositions". Most people don't start doing that much earlier than 13. Why in the world would anyone mention the age when someone started putting letters on paper. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed using that as a euphemism for private original writing is rather common. I don't quite get what problems people have with that. It seems to be a difficulty in understanding the sources and a misguided attempt to read them literally without context and common sense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me (although I've often seen kids younger than 13 writing original compositions too). I'm staying away from this henceforth. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, kids younger than 13 do, but evidently this one started at 13. And it's not even a euphemism. It's definition 2b from Merriam-Webster:

2. to set down in writing: as

b (1) : to be the author of : compose <writes poems and essays> (2) : to compose in musical form <write a string quartet>

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception

Drmies removed the phrase describing the subject's work having "received international attention and acclaim among critics" as vague and Ngebendi restored it saying it is not vague at all. I tend to agree with Drmies because "international attention" is awfully ambigous. I don't see any of this attention in mentioned in any of the sources. Does it mean that her work was translated into different languages? While the subject's work may have been received positively, the number of reviews cited are a bit on the thin side to start using wp:peacock phrasing. This part of the phrase could use some NPOV improvments. I would submit "positive" as the better adjective.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have modified to say that she's been translated. "Widely" is a bit of a catchword and I don't like the primary citation for "thirteen" (which I changed, since it's not borne out in that catalog), and I added a specific phrase. It's pretty widely (ha) recognized that she has a comic talent, so that's the kind of thing that is fine in the lead. Plus, I found another hit from the NYT saying so. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Invite her to lunch?

This is likely offtopic for this page but thought I'd drop it here anyway - I wonder if we might find a way to invite Ms. Filipacchi to a virtual lunch with wikipedia - sort of like a Reddit AMA. It might give a chance for us to explain how wikipedia works to her and share our views with her, and for her to share her views with us - and lead to greater understanding between the two. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You're probably better off asking Jimbo or someone at Wikimedia about these kind of things.

Peter 16:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not to give you too much grief Obi-Wan, but the first thing she might explain, in relation to the language of your invitation, is that you want us to explain "things", i.e. objective reality to her, and have her explain "her POV", i.e. her subjective point of view to us. Perhaps not such a good start on reaching understanding. I do realize you probably didn't intend to couch your invitation in such terms, but language does matter. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - it wasn't intended - I tried to correct above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? How is she different than any number of BLP subjects whose articles are lit up like a Christmas tree with adulation?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not adulation at all, it's quite a mixture - and viewed from the outside may be confusing. I just thought of it as an opportunity to create a bridge between her world and this one. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Those that are included in this classification

Should a writer such as Filipacchi who is currently included in Category:Post-modern writers also be added to List of postmodern writers? She is not currently included in the latter. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS issues

The fact that this article is undergoing extensive edits in response to publicity in the New York Times raises the issue of extensive canvassing, and undue editing by large numbers of individuals informed only by the words of the subject of this article. After the attention has died down, the slant of this article as a result of these edits needs to be re-examined in light of this.

In general, this article does suffer somewhat from a promotional slant (for starters, is the unsourced "she has been praised for her comic talent" warranted?), though probably no worse than the other fancruft and needless praise that's endemic to articles on popular writers, musicians, and other well-liked artists. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I don't see that as a problem at all. In fact, I see the complete opposite: whenever internal problems are advertised externally, Misplaced Pages editors step up to the plate and get their house in order. In other words, the publicity has not just given us the impetus to fix any problems, but it has allowed for additional eyes on the article. This is exactly where we want to be. This is not "canvassing" in the way we use the term on Misplaced Pages. This is a positive development that allows us to think critically on a massive scale about a particular set of articles. We really couldn't ask for more. This is the essence of crowdsourcing. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The vague text "has been praised for her comic talent" is still there, but the "might be promotional" banner is gone. I'm kind of afraid of messing with such a high-profile article but does anyone else agree something should be done? Lansey (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Apparently no one here has done much work in editing authors before, so I will explain. The template below is included in External links as a matter of course. The ISBNs for particular books are supposed to be for the first edition, in the Misplaced Pages language and/or original language. In this case, English. Worldcat includes the translated versions. This is considered useful. Some authors dislike its inclusion because they're afraid people will use libraries instead of buying their book. We've got 99 problems, but that ain't one.

• Template:Worldcat id

184.78.81.245 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but do we ever do this for books that have separate articles? Compare with Mario Vargas Llosa and Ann Rice, both promoted articles on literature. I don't see the point, really.

Peter 09:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Poisoning discussion

I added Filipacchi to Category:American humor novelists because at one point our lead said that she "is an American writer best known for her humorous, inventive, and controversial novels." That to me shouted "this person goes in a humor genre for novelists". The attempt to portray this as some sort of attack is just not at all helpful. In the same way I think her complaining about removing sources (which I have not done, but I still think her attacks on it were mean spirited and misguided) was a bad move. We have rules about things being reliable sources, and at least from what she wrote on the matter I got the impression that much of what had been removed really did not meet the criteria for being a reliable source. Considering that she has been on List of American novelists for ages, and has not to my knowledged been removed from it after being placed there (which I cannot say for the clearly more well known Stephanie Meyer), I think she is creating a problem where there is none.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That might be, but rules can be gamed and many WP authors know that all to well. Which was exactly what some of the external reporting criticized ("revenge editing" and similar). So there can be justified removal of sources because they fail WP criteria in the context of the article. But there can be a removal of sources being ok in the given context by claiming they violate WP:RS foramlly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Qworty is now a COI editor on this page

Having become part of the 2013 controversy section as a named party in mainstream coverage (See: Salon cite in the footnotes), be advised that User:Qworty is now a COI editor on this subject and is hereby advised not to edit further on this topic. Carrite (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this your determination that he is a "COI editor"? In any case Qworty has already stated his voluntary intention to step away from these articles. Perhaps your notice was intended for those reading about this story off wiki?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted, Qworty has already agreed not to edit this or related articles or their talkpages, so this notice is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

Anyone see anything wrong in adding a sentence along these lines:

Filipacchi currently lives in New York City together with journalist and novelist Richard Hine.

I noticed this while debating Hines on Twitter. He has no article, but he seems to be fairly notable on his own.

Peter 09:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I can't find any moderate or high quality RS to back the claim. I'm sure it's true, it's just not very verifiable, and hence I'm somewhat opposed to adding it. NickCT (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless reported in reliable sources. I usually avoid personal details like this unless its reported in the news, though these are discretionary types of decisions. Recently on Steven Crowder, for instance, I opposed added the name of his wife to his article. One can figure it out, but its not been reported in any reliable sources, and the subject himself doesn't identify his wife by name when he refers to her.--Milowent • 14:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• oppose I don't think this merits a mention, unless several sources mention that they are basically long-term partners. If they're just dating or living together, I don't think we should add it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not set on it myself, but just making sure you noticed that it's from Hine's own website.

Peter 20:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd wait for a few other articles, that say "Amanda, and her long-time partner Richard Hine" or whatever. Otherwise, its just a bit, hmm. Doesn't feel right - I don't think we usually mention who is dating whom or living with whom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

American novelist cat

This bio is now in two by-century, non-gendered sub-cats of American novelists, which is a diffusing category. Therefore, it should not be placed in Category:American novelists, per WP:Categorization. We need to stop worrying to much about newspaper articles and get back to following our own guidance, which is pretty clear. Gender/ethnic categories: non-diffusing. All others: diffusing. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As I just just said, what part of "What part of "The result...is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists" are you confused by?" isn't crystal-clear? This is the consensus of the discussion. If you and The Devil's Advocate refuse to abide by it, then you will be taken to WP:ANI where this refusal can be discussed. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In case you're not clear on what Tarc is talking about, the CfD was closed recently. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that would be awesome. Listen Tarc, this is a losing a battle - WP:Categories is pretty clear on this point. If you like, pretend that we did put it in Category:American novelists, and then a day later, an intrepid categorizer placed this bio into a by-century, non-gendered sub-cat which is diffusing, e.g. Category:20th-century American novelists - the sort of thing that happens, all the time. Would that go over better for you? If you like, we can give this bio a 24 hour stay in the American novelists land, before it gets diffused. Let me try to repeat again: Gender/ethnic categories: non-diffusing. All others: diffusing. Would you like to treat this bio differently than everyone else? If you think you have a case at ANI, be my guest. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

1. "Bio". Personal website. Retrieved 2013-05-02.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Low-importance New York (state) articles
• C-Class Columbia University articles
• Low-importance Columbia University articles
• WikiProject Columbia University articles
• C-Class Literature articles
• Unknown-importance Literature articles
• C-Class Misplaced Pages articles
• Unknown-importance Misplaced Pages articles
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press