Talk:Erica C. Barnett

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Erica Barnett.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please maintain NPOV

Hi, I'm B K. I know Ms Barnett, but created this page on my own initiative and without her prompting (but with her permission, because it's the polite thing to do). I've been a Wikipedia editor for 14 years. An administrator (not Ms Barnett) brought the page to my attention again, and another asked me to post on this talk page.

Please read the biographies of living persons (BLPs) page linked from the banner at the top of this page before posting. The short version: neutral point of view (NPOV) is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia, and in a biography of a living person, editors need to maintain NPOV with extra caution. "Biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."

To give an example for new editors of what non-NPOV looks like, one early edit stated that "Barnett is an alcoholic". There is no way to read this short sentence as NPOV—especially given the NPOV of the source, an article entitled "A journalist gets sober." The article never uses the word "alcoholic," probably because the word has clear derogatory implication in current U.S. culture; that word was inserted by the editor. Although the editor may be able to argue that the statement is factually true (depending on one's beliefs about alcoholism), factual truth is too low of a standard for a BLP. The standard is an NPOV "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". More NPOV summaries of the article might include "Barnett is a recovering alcoholic" or "Barnett had been an alcoholic but is now sober."

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (It's an official rule!). Just as editors can argue that their statement is strictly, technically correct or is backed up by some Wikipedia rule, please note the urgent and important tone of the BLP page, indicating that NPOV and balance take precedence on BLP pages.

Ms Barnett seems to inspire strong feelings in some people. If a source has a hard slant and has no NPOV itself, it may not be reliable enough to cite. If an editor has sufficiently strong feelings that they may not be able to maintain balance, the best thing to do may be to refrain from editing.

Happy editing,

B k (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You make a, partially, valuable point. I added "Barnett is an alcoholic" in keeping with my understanding that alcoholism is an incurable disease as opposed to a lifestyle choice and this is the verbiage preferred by medicine and alcoholics themselves [1] / [2]. To say ""Barnett had been an alcoholic" suggests Barnett had been cured which would be a WP:REDFLAG claim. However, I agree that your suggestion of "Barnett is a recovering alcoholic" is the best proposal of the three. I apologize if my word choice revealed a lack of nuance or understanding, on my part, of the sensitivity regarding this issue and thank you for this explanation and correction.
"Ms Barnett seems to inspire strong feelings in some people." As I assume this is directed towards me, I should clarify I'd never heard of Erica Barnett prior to three days ago. During the course of routine BLP patrolling I came across an article that seemed like it might merit deletion for lack of notability. As part of WP:BEFORE, I googled the individual's name and immediately found reporting on the subject that enabled this BLP to crest the WP:GNG and added it. The fact Barnett may have not found these particular stories flattering was not part of my thought process. NPOV means all WP:DUE coverage of a subject is included. NPOV does not mean only flattering coverage of a subject is included. BLPs on Wikipedia fill a different role than bios on book jackets or personal websites.
Aside from that, the other substantive edit I made to this page was to remove an in-body link in the first sentence of the article inserted by Ericacbarnett [3] in violation of our WP:EXT policy. Chetsford (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability?

Might be a mean question, but what's she done that's notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:886:D000:D16:E83F:D1F8:1D01 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

This article is currently the target of vandalism. Ericacbarnett (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I only see a content dispute between a COI editor (you) and a non-COI editor (Cptnon). I have, therefore, undone your edits to this article. If you disagree and believe that even this reversal is vandalism, you are free to file a report at WP:AIV. However, in this edit [4] you claim to remove "unsourced speculation" but, in fact, blank a paragraph that is sourced to KNKX-FM and the Seattle Weekly. That seems to be a more clear-cut case of vandalism. You will probably, therefore, find our discussion and consensus building process a more constructive approach. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I did extrapolate only a few peices from the interview focused on her sobriety. Maybe other information is just as important? Article aside, the next step for Barnett attempting to edit the article is requesting administrative intervention. It is not appropriate to accuse others of vandalism and I believe the account might need to be blocked. We can certainly have that conversation at the appropriate venue if she continues to edit in bad faith. Look, we both saw the reddit post and now people are attempting to make edits accordingly. The article is more important than your feelings or attempted PR.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you both pause for a second and read what you've written? The malicious animus of these edits is obvious, and the solution should be just to leave the article alone, rather than include this "extrapolation." lethargilistic (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

lethargilistic, your edit went too far. Maybe y'all should take this up at BLPN. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This was clearly not done in good faith. It's an attempt to embarrass her. The fact that they spent time gathering sources for their bad faith edits does not make them good faith, and the version of the article without them should take precedence rather than defaulting to institutionalization. lethargilistic (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that this was not done in good faith. Auldhouse (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we should dial this back a bit. This is a fairly routine content dispute that can be very easily resolved through a discussion that focuses on the relevance and content of the sources and doesn't castigate or impugn the motivations of individual editors. I'm happy to open an RfC. Chetsford (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Sentences on journey to sobriety

On October 26, User:Ericacbarnett removed the following section of this article due to "inaccurate information and unsourced speculation" [5]:

Barnett grew up in Texas and idolized Molly Ivins and Hunter S Thompson. In 2009, she left a grocery store with a bottle of wine she did not pay for. She took an agreement with the court to have the city dismiss the theft charges. She later became sober and explained to an interviewer how her writing suffered when she was drunk.

This section, as of datestamp, is currently not in the article. Should it be restored or left out? Chetsford (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
References:

References

• Restored The subject of the article has widely discussed her struggle with sobriety in media and its connection to her journalistic mentors such as Hunter S. Thompson; it is an important aspect of her life story. To omit it would leave an incomplete picture of the subject. I disagree that a matter discussed and acknowledged by the subject herself, and documented in multiple independent WP:RS, constitutes "unsourced speculation". Indeed, one of the very sources (NPR affiliate KNKX-FM) blanked by the subject of this article as "unsourced speculation" was highlighted by her on her own blog [6]. In fact, her forthcoming book is titled A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse and Recovery — obfuscating all mention of said drinking, relapse and recovery from this article, therefore, would be exceptionally odd and would not serve our readers. Wikipedia BLPs exist to paint an holistic and accurate picture of their subject so as to give the reader insight and perspective on their motivations, struggles, and journey. They serve a different purpose than a biography on a book jacket or a press release which is designed to promote and highlight the subject's career achievements. While I appreciate the subject of this article's perspective on the matter, three short sentences in a lightly sourced, four paragraph article is hardly WP:UNDUE. Chetsford (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Left Out While it doesn't seem to be unsourced speculation, it's not encyclopedic that half of biography's personal life section is devoted to a dismissed shoplifting charge over a bottle of wine. When her memoir is published and reviewed there will be plenty of well sourced information (e.g, the name of the memoir) to respectfully inform readers that the subject has issues with alcohol without highlighting embarrassing trivialities. If she'd gotten drunk and shot up a diner or ran over a schoolchild we might have something to include, but I just can't reconcile due weight with a dismissed shoplifting charge. Maybe if it was a Faberge Egg or a Monet, and widely reported? Seren_Dept 06:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  Good points, I'm tempted to change my !vote ... the article has been going through a fast sequence of reverts. In the article's current state I'd agree it might be hovering on the border of UNDUE, while in the state it might be in five minutes from now I think it would be DUE. Chetsford (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  Seren_Dept - just a heads-up that the page has stabilized a bit now and the article ballooned to three times the size it was when you originally cast your !vote. Since your !vote seemed to be based on WP:DUE I thought I'd ping you as an FYI. Chetsford (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks Chetsford, it was partly WP:DUE but also WP:BLP. Whatever we intend, I think people feel harassed and embarrassed if details of criminal records (even minor ones) make a substantial part of articles about them. I know they seem public about that stuff, but it's different when they do it; they get to choose the time and provide context in a way they can't in the article. I think we should avoid including such details if the crime itself isn't notable, and this one isn't. We can be informative and avoid all of those issues just by naming the memoir and waiting for secondary review sources. It makes me think of celebrity DUI convictions; they're much more serious and usually public record (I think) but I'm not sure they generally belong in biographies. Do you know if there's a consensus on that? Seren_Dept 07:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  Makes sense, Seren_Dept! Thanks for checking back. Chetsford (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Chetsford: Regarding these re-additions - the problem is not the position of the {{Reflist-talk}}, it is the sheer length of the Wikitext in the RfC statement - that is, the content that occurs between the {{rfc}} tag and the next timestamp after that. The refs in the statement of this RfC occupy 1,459 bytes of Wikitext, and that takes the RfC statement beyond what Legobot (talk · contribs) can handle. That is why nothing is showing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies other than the two links near the bottom; and if this situation persists for the next twelve hours or so, these RfCs will also not be publicised to WP:FRS subscribers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for catching! Those were a mess and I've moved them down. Chetsford (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for fixing both, this is the effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Left Out This side story does not add to the article and as it is a biography of a living person, I think it should be left out for now. It can be re-examined in light post-publication of the memoir if the story's relevance is elevated through other secondary sources. Auldhouse (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Left out A minor infraction, later dismissed in court, committed 10 years ago, seems totally WP:UNDUE. Jschnur (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Left out. Seems kind of contrary to BLPCRIME, and a bit pointless unless it is tied into some actual life impact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Include somethin like that. Alcohol is an important part of her past and context, that she writes about (not the particular theft event so much, but the rest of the paragraph). The reason given for removing it seems disingenuous, since the material is well sourced, so the removal should probably have just been reverted. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Include per Dicklyon and Chetsford (original nom) above. I see no good reason to exclude it. I don't think we need to mention more than a sentence or two, and it doesn't need to be in the Lede or even the initial paragraph or anything; however, to exclude it is both disgenuous and skewed. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: Not a ballot template

For purposes of clarification, I should note I added the Template:Not a ballot to the above RfC to get ahead of the curve based on a tweet [7] just sent out by the subject of this article in which she addresses "the assholes who keep vandalizing my Wikipedia page ... i feel very sad for you, that all you have time to do with your lives is anonymously harass a female journalist" which was followed by several "@" mentions from her followers seeking to "help ECB" etc. While a WP:MEATPUPPET of the subject of this article was recently blocked [8], I don't feel a mere tweet of this type rises to the level of meatpuppetry. It is the reasonable reaction from a person dissatisfied with their WP entry and we should note Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Nonetheless, this may have a WP:CANVASSing effect, even if unintentional, and the template may be useful in introducing newly created editors to our discussion and WP:CONSENSUS process. Chetsford (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced comment by an editor now unable to move it to appropriate section; GF collapsed

stop it. You are going to get us both blocked and the page locked. I have removed the contentious line and restored the previous version. It is not my problem she is a drunk (maybe I enjoy beer, too) but we need to take a chill pill and not break an article about a person that actually might need to be deleted anyways.Cptnono (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Cptnono - I think you left this in the wrong section. I'd GF move it but I'm not clear where it's supposed to go. Chetsford (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to edit your own page?

I don't like it that Erica C. Barnett is editing her own page. Or at least a user with her name is doing it.

I get she doesn't like the vandalism and appreciate the reverts. But she is also making editorial changes to the page.

Why don't you just make this page go back to the way it was 2 weeks ago and lock it for a while to let everyone cool off.

ConfirmedToBeAHorse (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

She has gone too far. The article now reads like an expanded upon resume. I am reverting and the next step is ANI.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines explain how this works. Anybody -- even editors with a conflict of interest -- are free to edit any page the like, same as anybody else. The only requirement is to disclose their conflict, which tends to invite additional scrutiny. Which usually leads to the discovery that it is extremely difficult to edit Wikipedia when one has a conflict. Other editors take a microscope to everything you do, and you have to second guess every choice. I would advise anyone to choose a different topic. But it is allowed.

In this case, we have a more important policy to consider: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Any content about living persons is held to a much higher standard than other Wikipedia content, and anything controversial or potentially negative which is not extremely well sourced must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The earlier versions of this article had negative content that was highly dubious, and not written to the high standards of the BLP policy, and was not sufficiently well sourced. It also over-emphasized negative information. With biographies, if an article is missing content and only has coverage of negative information, creating an unbalanced viewpoint, the negative content has to be deleted until the article is expanded. WP:Editing policy normally allows an unbalanced article to be tagged for expansion and left in a NPOV state, but not a BLP.

So you can't have a bunch of dirt about somebody until you've written a comprehensive survey of their entire public life. Attack pages are never allowed.

This is a roundabout way of saying I don't think the lines about the Atlantic article and retraction should be kept. The Katie Herzog article in The Stranger has been called a hit piece by more than one observer, and we have to do better any time we are citing allegations of wrongdoing. The entire incident appears to have amounted to a lot of nothing anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"The Katie Herzog article in The Stranger has been called a hit piece by more than one observer" Who? Chetsford (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I could answer that so much faster if "katie herzog hit piece" didn't return so many Google hits on so many subjects. That alone is reason to find literally anybody else to cite on a BLP. Controversial content on living people needs the best sources, not reporters with spotty records. Very often Wikipedia articles simply fail to even mention low-level controversies on bio pages, because we err on the side of caution, always. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"so many Google hits on so many subjects. That alone is reason No. Please see WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would strongly advice anyone wishing to add controversial content to carefully read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. You have to get it exactly right, and you have to be certain your sources are bulletproof. The only real way to proceed is explain what you want to do on the talk page and ensure you have consensus. Policy on living persons requires when in doubt leave it out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

fine. I removed a single sentance in the spirit of BLP. Stop edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You literally just edit warred, and now you have the gall to say "stop edit warring"? LOL. No, buddy. If you edit war, others will edit war. If you wish to declare an end to it, then you have to stop. The problem is you're on the wrong side of the BLP policy. I am putting the article in the most cautious, conservative state, avoiding controversy and negative attacks, and sticking with well-sourced facts. The burden is on you to state here why you need this article to take a more critical attitude towards its subject. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I invite anyone coming to this later to look at the last revert. Why is it OK for Cptnono to unilaterally revert sourced content intended to balance out the pure hit-piece version that they prefer, when it's not OK for the rest of us to revert obviously bad faith editing? lethargilistic (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

chill out. This article should be deleted anyway. This is not a cover letter.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Obviously. Bad. Faith. Editing. lethargilistic (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

how about you propose an alternative. I added sources and even removed the line. What the fuck have you done?Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The alternative is Dennis Bratland's version, which is much better and more informative. lethargilistic (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I think everyone here needs to cool off. This isn't a race. It might take a few weeks or months to get the article right, and that's okay. Obviously, the subject of this article making direct edits and pursuing an off-wiki dialog isn't the most helpful contribution, but these things tend to run out of steam on their own. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You want to insult a living person, calling a journalist a mere blogger, for a few more MONTHS? I cited a half dozen cases of mainstream journalists calling Barnett an "independent journalist" and crediting her with an important scoop that influenced public policy or activity. You cannot leave a BLP giving undue weight to negative content, and deleting positive content. If it wasn't living person, we could take our time. On a BLP? No --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"You want to insult a living person, calling a journalist a mere blogger Huh? Chetsford (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The current version is belittling. The section on Nextdoor gets the story completely wrong. What happened was Barnett broke a major story and changed city policy. It sneeringly describes it as her getting her Nextdoor account suspended for bad behavior. Barnett is the reason Seattle pulled out of it's big plans for neighborhood meetings on Nextdoor. She was exactly right about the state's open meetings law. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow. That seems to be exactly what the article says. Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Now it does, after El C kindly restored it to the version before the blocked editor edit warred. The content I added is directly reflected in the sources, as required by WP:BLPSTYLE. All that gossip about getting her Nextdoor account suspended or drinking or professional errors is tabloid trash. The policy is very clear: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered." We need very good sources and we need a very good reason to trash somebody's reputation. That crap doesn't balance the article. It might be interesting color to read about a historical figure, but anybody still living gets the benefit of the doubt. It's a firm policy you don't get to dick around with. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First, I have no problem with with the content you added. Second, I don't think anyone is trying to "trash somebody's reputation". I'm sorry we seem to have difficulty communicating. Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder that you will need BLP noticeboard consensus to establish that BLP violations have taken place — if this fails to happen, the invocation of BLP may be seen to be unsubstantiated. El_C 07:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Two sentences regarding a retracted article in The Atlantic

On October 26 Ericacbarnett blanked a section of this article [9] which read:

While writing for TheAtlantic.com later in 2016, she erroneously accused Seattle radio's Ron & Don Show of encouraging listeners to harass a city council member after a contentious sports vote eliminating the possibility of a new sports arena.The Atlantic retracted the story shortly after.

As of this datestamp, the lines in question are not part of the article. Should these lines be restored or omitted?

Relisting RfC prematurely closed by Legobot when the page closed as delete. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC))

Chetsford (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

References

• Restored (but clean-up tense and grammar) These 39 words in a 440 word article are not WP:UNDUE, particularly since the article is essentially a month-by-month account of her writing highlights. It is a factual statement that the subject wrote an article for The Atlantic and that this article was subsequently retracted. To obfuscate factual content that the subject of the article may find unflattering pushes this into the realm of WP:PROMOTIONAL. At WP:RSN, The Stranger has been previously described by consensus as WP:RS. While a detailed rationale for this removal was not contained in the edit history, Ericacbarnett previously expressed concern on her Talk page [10] that one of the sources used in this section was written by "[journalist name removed] a writer who has a long and public history of personal attacks against me". Unfortunately, for the subject of a BLP to simply declare — without evidence — that a fairly established journalist has a history of bias against him/herself is not sufficient to obfuscate properly sourced facts from a BLP. If it were, our articles on Donald Trump and John Edwards would read very differently. Chetsford (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• "Katie Herzog is arguably Seattle's most controversial contemporary editorialist"[11] Barnett and Herzog feuded over the Aziz Ansari#Allegation of sexual misconduct: [12][13] Herzog joked, or "joked" that "Stranger staff writer Katie Herzog regrets not blocking Erica C. Barnett sooner." [14]. The source is skunked. Whatever is going on, this person is not a reliable source to cite for negative content in a BLP.

  I'd like to know what this information adds to the article. If Barnett was widely considered unreliable, this could be cited as evidence. But that' is not the case: numerous diverse professional sources cite her as reliable. So what exactly are we trying to tell readers with this? What's the point? We don't put negative content into a BLP without a reason. Just because we can isn't good enough. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  She wrote an article for The Atlantic. The article was retracted. That happened. It's neither positive nor negative, it's simply a biographical fact. Respectfully, I think you're a little caught up on your idea of "positive content" versus "negative content". There is no such thing. There is only factual content. We include all factual content of due weight. Second, your sources for there being a "feud" between Katie Herzog and Erica C. Barnett are Erica C. Barnett's own blog which is not WP:INDEPENDENT and KUOW which — on examination — actually says nothing of the sort [15]. Katie Herzog is a mainstream journalist published in Salon, The Guardian, The Stranger and who hosts a PBS show. If you're going to call her "unreliable" you'll need more than a blog as evidence. Chetsford (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  The BLP policy says you're wrong. There is content that is potentially harmful and is held to a higher standard. You need to explain what the purpose of this is. The inability to get by without one source is a red flag. If this had merit, you'd have many alternative sources and removing one would make no difference. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  Agree with User:Dennis Bratland. If there were more than one source quoting or citing this as evidence it would be credible enough to be added to this article, but in general it doesn't add anything substantial or informational to this article other than creating added controversy. Pedestrianswimmer (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep in mind that the WP:BLP policy applies to all Wikipedia pages, not only the article namespace. It doesn't matter if it's talk or draft or sandbox; if it could harm a living person, it has to be impeccably sourced, no matter where you say it. If we say anything about the Atlantic retraction, it must rely on multiple sources with no cloud over them. The NYT recently did a highly sympathetic article portraying Katie Herzog as a victim of cancel culture, and even given the effort the NYT makes to cover it from Herzog's point of view, it underscores my point that she is a lightning rod of criticism who is not trusted by a significant number of people. Someone that controversial can't be your main source for damaging information about someone else. If we have other, high-quality sources to cite, then it can be acceptable to mention it, but not as long as the Herzog post from The Stranger is the main source. The problem I have is that when you subtract what Herzog says about it, we don't have other sources saying this incident matters much if at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Send to AfD non-notable U.S. blogger and regional radio personality. As written, fails WP:Notability and may lack significant coverage. Haven't done WP:BEFORE procedures yet, but most, if not all, sources in article are either primary or passing/tangential mentions. Nothing about her. -Doug Mehus (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleting the article entirely may be the best move. Chetsford (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Omit. I'm going on it just seems not a BLP significant event. If it was preface that led to a career shift or criminal charge or some other impact yes, but on its own it seems just a gossipy tidbit. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Restored If the article ever gets out of draft. As it stands now, i dont believe it passes WP:Notability. Bonewah (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Citation overkill on a stub

Some sentences in the current version now have three and even four footnotes. If this were a Good Article nomination, rather than a stub, one might object that it's citation overkill and that the footnotes should either be bundled or pared back. Perhaps that would be done to pass GA review. But in the case of stubs that need to be expanded. filling the page with "excess" citations serves to move the ball down the field, taking care of part of the work for future editors to build upon to expand to a full article. Generally when that has happened, the strings of 4 or 5 footnotes, as well as the pile of "further reading" or "external links" collecting at the bottom of the article get spread out through the enlarged article body. You can slap tags on it if you want, or tag the bottom of the article with {{stub}}, or just let it go until somebody comes along to finish writing the article.

I'm only saying that with an article in early stages of development, it's nothing to panic over. It doesn't demand immediate action to stave off the death of Wikipedia or anything. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion concerning this article above, maybe it would be better to put it there - to see the picture in whole. Too many issues) --Less Unless (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Vocation?

We're back to what kind of appears to be an attempt to diminish and trivialize Barnett's work by demoting her from a journalist to a mere blogger, in this edit by Chetsford. So we had three footnotes supporting the job title of "journalist", [16][17][18], all of them from 2019. We don't need to stop there. Many further examples could be added, all form 2019: [19][20][21][22][23]. Etc. It goes on and on. "Reporter" comes up: [24]. And "editor": [25].

Examples of her being called a blogger date waaaay back to 2012, 7 years ago[26], and a couple kind of a little more recent, from 2016[27] 2017[28]. I can't find many more.

She was a newspaper reporter (journalist), form 2000 to 2009, and after the Great Recession and 2009 decline of newspapers, worked freelance, worked in new media, and founded her own startup sites, publicola.net and thecisforcrank.com, and in the early years was sometimes called a blogger, but more recently, and more consistently journalist.

If the subject of a BLP used to have a paper route or work at McDonald's, should we add "paperboy" or "fast food worker" to their infobox? It's not harmful or wrong to call Barnett a blogger, or former blogger. It's more accurate to say that in earlier years, Barnett's thecisforcrank.com website was considered a mere blog, and as time went on it was taken more seriously, due to the work cited here in the article, and sources felt it more accurate to call her an "independent journalist" than a blogger. But again, she was a journalist for a decade before that; her "blogging" was an example of the changing media landscape, not her quitting the journalism profession.

So why are Wikipedia editors so hot to put her back down? It just looks like an attempt to take someone's accomplishments away, to make them seem like imposters. It looks like an attempt to magnify this period of work from 2010 through ~2017, to lower her status. Why?

I don't think it is consistent with the WP:BLP policy. We have copious sources who say she is an independent journalist. We have a handful of old sources that used to call her a blogger. WP:WEIGHT alone favors the 10+ sources, all recent, rather than the 3-4ish few, some quite old. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't share your opinion that being a blogger is somehow shameful. There's nothing wrong or insulting about being a blogger; the subject of this article has even described her own website as a "blog" [29]. (A "blog" is simply a website with posts displayed in reverse chronological order, which lacks a gatekeeping process, and which often allows comments. "Blog" does not mean "sub-par news website" as you seem to believe when you say "mere blog" and having a blog is not disreputable.) Also, we go by what RS say. We have multiple RS that identify her as a blogger. I don't share your opinion that 2017 is "waaaay back". However, if it helps, I've added an RS from 2019 that also describes her as a blogger. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say "shameful". Also didn't say "wrong" or "insulting". Didn't say "disreputable". I didn't say 2017 was "way back"; I said 2012. So these are plainly straw man arguments which I don't think I should have to spend time batting away. It's kind of a waste of everyone's time for you to have characterized my words in that way. For the second time, please don't cast aspersions or mischaracterize my words or editing.

You haven't given any explanation for why her occupation must say "blogger" at all. What is your intent? It's not all that helpful to stuff infoboxes with excess detail. And the need for, how many? Eight footnotes? She was a newspaper journalist for a decade, and then continued doing journalism on websites she founded, while working freelance for various established media. It's accurate and straightforward to put the simple word "journalist" in the infobox. Why do you feel the need to point out that her current journalistic medium is mostly via a blog, but you don't feel any compulsion to mention her decade of newspaper journalism? Why the blog medium but not print? You are probably aware of her several years appearing on KUOW radio every week, but haven't felt the need to mention she is a radio journalist, in addition to being a print journalist, and a blog journalist.

To me these multiple edits to change it to blogger, or add blogger ahead of journalist, seem to serve to invalidate and diminish her work. Most (not all) of the article edits you have made, and almost every talk page comment, has been to remove or cast doubt on laudatory descriptions and positive accomplishments, while adding negative content, such as alcoholism, or when you added a defamation lawsuit that went nowhere, subsequently judged to be of dubious BLP status, and to question whether her work is even notable, calling credit given her by major media as merely "routine". The desire to call her a blogger, without any interest in adding detail like newspaper reporter or radio journalist, is consistent with the overall pattern of edits. I easily found 10 sources to support "journalist", and if adding 10 more would matter, would take no time. It's taken a while to scrape together more than 3 to support "blogger". Apparently it's something you felt compelled to spend time searching for. Am I wrong in noting a pattern here?

In short, I favor just having "journalist" in the infobox. Short, accurate, not disputed. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." If we must (for reasons I'm unaware of as yet) stuff more detail into the infobox, then it should say newspaper reporter and newspaper editor for the years 2000-2009, and then for the years 2009-2019, blogger and independent journalist. And I guess mention weekly radio news analyst too? Somehow. Like I say, it seems easier to just say 'journalist', but if we must specify journalistic media, it seems kind of biased to arbitrarily pick and choose them. Again, my question is, why? What's the purpose of this? It appears to be to cast the subject in a worse light. If that isn't the purpose, what is it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"You haven't given any explanation for why her occupation must say "blogger" at all." Because that's what RS say. Chetsford (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how that jibes with the policy of Due and undue weight. Why are you giving such a prominent place to a relative minority of the sources here? And if that minority of sources is to be given such prominence, then do you have any objection to adding "newspaper reporter", "newspaper editor", "radio commentator" etc? Per RS? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

First, it's not a "minority of the sources". Second, WP:DUE calls for all significant viewpoints to be represented and does not differentiate majority, minority, or plurality views. To your question, "do you have any objection to adding "newspaper reporter", "newspaper editor", "radio commentator" etc", I'll defer comment except to say such an edit — within the context of the preceding — would be WP:POINTY in the extreme. You'll have to judge for yourself whether or not that would be a wise edit to make. Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I take that as a non-responsive answer. Some kind of veiled threat? It's really hard to tell. You fall into this quasi-threat mode from time to time, and as anyone would, I'm nonplussed. You get yourself on over to ANI if you have a heinous crime to report. And best of luck with that! Otherwise there's nothing to say, and I'll proceed as discussed unless any other editor has something relevant to add. -Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"Some kind of veiled threat?" Please dial it back just a little bit. No one here is threatening you. No one here is trying to impugn Erica Barnett. No one here is out to "get" you or Erica. There are no conspiracies being concocted in which you or Erica are the targets. I'm completely perplexed and confused at the manner in which you've chosen to conduct yourself here. I think there's really no utility in continuing this discussion since it appears we're unable to do so without these dramatic digressions and contortions. I'm sure we've both expressed our opinion adequately and I'll defer to other editors to weigh-in moving forward. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You accused me of WP:POINTy behavior. That guideline page, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, says such behavior "is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban". You are threatening me with blocks and bans, on utterly absurd grounds. I asked why we must highlight the blog medium; and if that's what we're doing, then let's list all media, not pick out one for unexplained reasons. For which you suggested i could be banned or blocked! What on Earth is wrong with you? I suggest you get a grip on yourself. Either get over to ANI and propose a block or ban, or cease and deist your threats, and cease casting aspersions. The arbcom has taken a firm stand that this kind of thing isn't tolerated. Stop, and do no more.

You did this at the AfD page and you're losing that debate. It's not helping. It's also not scaring me off. It doesn't work, and it's going to blow up in your face. Quit it.

A constructive contribution would be to say in plain, simple words, why do you want to add "blogger" to the infobox occupation field, yet not add print, newspaper, radio, etc? You said it's because you found it in sources, but you are well aware sources verify she worked in print media, in newspapers, and on the radio. So why only blogger and not the others? And why can't we keep it simple and say journalist, since in all of these media, she was doing journalism? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again, no one has threatened you and no one is out to "get" you. There are no conspiracies in which you are the target. Please just chill out a little. "you're losing" - This is Wikipedia, not Playstation 4. We all win when WP is improved through discussion and community-built consensus. Civil dialog and respectful interaction with each other is part of that process. I hope that, in the future, you will come to realize the value of rational, norm-based behavior. Thanks, as always, for your passionate contributions. Chetsford (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Addition of the Notability tag to Draft:Erica C. Barnett draft article

A quick update to the regular editors of this page: I've added the {{Notability}} tag atop this draft article, per the result of the recent AfD discussion which closed as delete. This should serve as a functional reminder prior to the article being submitted for consideration as part of the AfC process.

If you object, please, per bold, revert, discuss, let's discuss this and we can initiate a 30-day RfC process, as needed. : )

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 22:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: While he didn't reply with an expression of support or opposition, administrator Chetsford thanked me for adding this talkpage section, which is indicative of no objection support in favour. I thought it would be important to let the record reflect that. Doug Mehus T·C 22:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - to clarify, I was thanking you for your passion on the topic that has lubricated your continued interest in it. I liberally hand-out thank-yous (1,294 so far) but they usually don't portend much deeper meaning than general appreciation for participation. Also, it's not totally necessary you preface my username with administrator. Obviously I can't stop you if you'd prefer to do so, but you just might find it a bit less to type by omitting it! (Also, some people might find referring to an editor's user rights can have a chilling effect on discussion as new and novice editors might incorrectly interpret agreement or disagreement as constituting some sort of official opinion, even though user rights are just maintenance tools.) Chetsford (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford, Oh, thanks for clarifying. Like you, I am very liberal in my 'thank yous'. Still, while it's not an indication of explicit support, it's also not an objection to including the Notability tag, right?

As for why I preface your name with "administrator," I do that as a sign of respect for administrators who functionality exhibit the model behaviour. Some administrators can be downright uncivil or exercise their privileges in questionable methods; I do not preface their name with "administrator." Now, to be fair, I don't preface editors with page mover privileges as "page mover John Doe", but have at times, prefaced "template editor" in front of SMcCandlish's name because I have a lot of respect for template editors. So anyway, that's why I refer to you as administrator. Doug Mehus T·C 23:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford, I decided to add up my "thanks" from the Thanks log, and it looks like I've given out ~1400 since May 2018; however, ~1399 of those were handed out since August 2019. Doug Mehus T·C 00:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No sure why we're arguing about this. Since AfD closed to delete on notability grounds, the tag is correct (at least for now). It signals to other editors working in draft-space why this page is in there and thus what kind of work it most needs. PS: While I missed the AfD, I would have supported deletion. The article is clearly promotional, and is distorting source coverage to make it seem as if Barnett is the focus of that coverage when other subjects such as NextDoor.com and police accountability were. When you sift through this, what you end up with is "Erica C. Barnett is a journalist, and has actually done some journalism while employed as one. And local people read her stuff, and local businesses and organizations have paid attention to her, as they are wont to do with local journalists." This is not an encyclopedia article, and I have skepticism that it can be rescued. Just because someone is in a public-facing career doesn't make them encyclopedically notable simply because they're employed and have been working. That equates to competence not notability. Show us Barnett winning multiple national and international awards, for example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)