Talk:Amber L. Hollibaugh: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:34, 25 May 2012

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

For the record, this is not a fan's review. I am not a fan of Amber L. Hollibaugh and have never been in contact with her or her agents. Rjensen (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Age

Does she have a date of birth? 93.184.128.18 (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes--1946 Rjensen (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I was asked to look at this. It's a Promotional article, no matter who wrote it, and is written just like many similar articles. A very abbreviated biography, with nothing specific about background and education. Discussing the contents of the book by including quotations or summaries of articles about them. Favorable comments only, which is rather unlikely for a radical of any sort, or anyone writing in this area. I did a little rewriting, but I haven't looked for other sources.

I was also asked to look at BLP concerns; the first paragraph is of course the sort of statements we are very careful with. But they come from her publisher's PR site, and therefore contain only what she herself wants to be said. So there's no concern about negative BLP. There is a concern about WP:V -- it's self-description, & it is not unknown for people to describe their activities in more lurid or dramatic ways than the actual circumstances warrant. (Some of the statements of course are almost always impossible to document otherwise) So I changed the wording to indicate that it was a self-description, and the reader will make of it what they will.

There's no real qy about notability: the book reviews and the other articles are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 [[Special:Contributions/93.184.128.18|93.184.128.18]] ([[User talk:93.184.128.18|talk]]) 08:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 ::yes--1946 [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 12:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+==Comments==
+I was asked to look at this. It's a Promotional article, no matter who wrote it, and is written just like many similar articles. A very abbreviated biography, with nothing specific about background and education. Discussing the contents of the book by including quotations or summaries of articles about them. Favorable comments only, which is rather unlikely for a radical of any sort, or anyone writing in this area. I did a little rewriting, but I haven't looked for other sources.
+I was also asked to look at BLP concerns; the first paragraph is of course the sort of statements we are very careful with. But they come from her publisher's PR site, and therefore contain only what she herself wants to be said. So there's  no concern about negative BLP. There is a concern about WP:V -- it's self-description, & it is not unknown for people to describe their activities in more lurid or dramatic ways than the actual circumstances warrant. (Some of the statements of course are almost always  impossible to document otherwise) So I changed the wording to indicate that it was a self-description, and the reader will make of it what they will.
+There's no real qy about notability: the book reviews and the other articles are sufficient. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 20:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)