Talk:Vanessa Kerry

HMS Faculty

She is affiliated faculty of HMS, as is everyone who is a physician at any of the teaching hospitals that are affiliated with Harvard. This is distinct from being on the faculty. Not to minimize her role at MGH, but Harvard has 146 tenure-track and tenured faculty. The affiliated number 11,000. http://hms.harvard.edu/about-hms/hms-affiliates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.79.250.209 (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

This article was redirected to Kerry her father and her sister wasn't. so I think she is notable enough to have an article, even if her independent accomplishments, in and off themselves, borderline noterity, but she obviously was in public stage b/c of her father's campaign and role.--Mikerussell 22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE edit

I just did a fairly straightforward WP:GOCE review and edit. NO CONTENT or SOURCES were removed, it was a simple cut and past with the addition of the some sections for clarity and consistency with other BLP articles. For non-U.S. Readers, I added some context as to who John Kerry is in the Lead, otherwise the article contains pretty much what it started with prior to my efforts. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Froggyleap54 and Avaya1: I've declined to fully protect this article but both of you need to start using the talk page please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I believe Froggyleap54 is associated with the subject's spouse. If I remember correctly they object to the inclusion of the Iranian American qualifier, perhaps because of the relationship with John Kerry (I'm just theorizing here). Vanessa Kerry's husband used to have an article, which was deleted after an AFD, and that also attracted some (I assume) Iranian editors who were insistent on highlighting the subject's heritage. Honestly I see no harm in including that information, except that it has become a point of contention I guess so on the other hand I'd err in the side of courtesy and take the position that the husband's ancestry is irrelevant to this article and WP:NPF applies since he no longer has an article. In any case, the edit warring has started up again so I protected the article. Perhaps the parties can weigh in here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It is sourced and notable content - sourced to Le Figaro. I can't understand the justification for removing or censoring the content, since it uses up three words of the article and was considered notable by one of the world's most famous newspapers. . Avaya1 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nationality being mentioned in a newspaper doesn't necessarily make it a notable trait, just saying. I'm not entirely sure how Brian Vala Nahed's nationality is relevant to his wife's article since it isn't all about him. It would definitely be suitable for an article on Vala Nahed himself, but that has been deleted due to lack of notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Vala Nahed). It isn't so much about "censoring" as it is "this content is not relevant to the article". Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Normally it would be no big deal but if someone is objecting then I also have no problem removing it. If I find a source that says Vanessa Kerry once went to Disneyland, are we obligated to include that in the article? No. And of course the elephant in the room: Would we be having this conversation if Kerry's husband had Norwegian or Bolivian ancestry? Very probably not. No one would object to it, and at the same time no one would insist that it be included. No one would care. So I can understand the objections by the subject or her husband, I can see that removal would be justified based on lack of relevancy, but I can't see why it's so important to keep it. Perhaps Avaya1 can explain what the big deal is with this. Perhaps they have some sort of valid argument other than "I read it in an article" §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It is probably considered notable because of who she is the daughter of. She is primarily notable for being John Kerry's daughter. John Kerry's main foreign policy accomplishment has been diplomacy with Iran. And the subject of the article in Le Figaro is the fact that his daughter is married to an Iranian-American. The fact that this is covered by reliable sources, makes it notable enough for a mention in the article, at least for three words of the article. Nobody could argue that it is undue to add three words. As for nationality, most articles on wikipedia note people's nationality and even their spouses nationality, so it is quite a project-wide consensus that this information can be included. I've never seen people removing it before. Avaya1 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. If that's the only reason this article exists then it should be nominated for deletion. And unless you can make a connection between Vanessa Kerry, her father, and American foreign policy, there is no case for inclusion whatsoever. We don't do nyuk-nyuk schadenfreude in biographies. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there's a place for this content in this article. Moving forward I suggest we build a {{cite}} for this reference which includes the exact passage in French and an English language translation of it that the term Iranian-American is used for. Then people can't quibble about whether the source says what we think it says or whether it should be 'Iranian-born Amercian' or something. I don't speak French, so can't do it myself. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Le Figaro article from 2013 is behind a pay wall, but the title translates to "Why Iran looks favourably on John Kerry" ("Pourquoi l'Iran voit John Kerry d'un bon œil"). I imagine the contents are similar to the journalist's blog from the same date here wherein he states that Vanessa Kerry's husband is a doctor of "Iranian origin who still has relatives in the Islamic Republic" ("d'origine iranienne qui a encore de la famille en République islamique"). It then quotes an unnamed "businessman" who claims that "he [Nahed] still goes back to Iran to visit his relatives" ("'Il se rend encore à Téhéran voir ses proches'"). So, was he born in Iran or were his parents simply from Iran? His official biography at Mass General states that he was born in New York [1] and frankly, who cares that his parents were originally from Iran? Let's face it, it is only "notable" because of internet speculation/conspiracy theories (and there are a lot of them from the usual suspects) that somehow Iran and the US (and the other countries involved) would base nuclear arms negotiations on the ethnic origin of Kerry's son-in-law. The putative ethnic heritage of the subject's husband is pretty irrelevant to the article, and even more so to the arms negotiations. Why the insistence on keeping it in simply because it is "sourced"? For that matter, why keep it out? But personally, I'd leave it out per WP:NPF.

In fact, I'd leave this entire article out. Were she anyone but Kerry's daughter, would she have an article? No. The decision of the 2007 AfD was to merge it with Kerry's article and it duly was, but another editor simply ignored the decision and recreated the article two weeks later. Her only other claim to notability is that she was later one of the founders (and current CEO) of Seed Global Health, in itself not a particularly notable organization. It was originally known as Global Health Service Corps (as was the article). That horrifically COI article started out like this in 2012 with the sole purpose of publicising the project's launch and recruiting applicants and is still regularly "curated" by its staff. As ye sow so shall ye reap and all that. Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)