Revision as of 19:27, 22 August 2010 editRd232 (talk | contribs)54,863 edits →Views on Climate Change: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:28, 22 August 2010 edit undoRd232 (talk | contribs)54,863 edits →Views on Climate Change: copyeditNext edit → | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::The clear BLP violation was including the view along with the comment about her having 2 children. Whether the view alone is worth including is more debatable (cherrypicking journalists' views is a perennial Misplaced Pages problem), but in view of the circumstances I don't wish to debate it myself - please go to ] for input. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC) | ::The clear BLP violation was including the view along with the comment about her having 2 children. Whether the view alone is worth including is more debatable (cherrypicking journalists' views is a perennial Misplaced Pages problem), but in view of the circumstances I don't wish to debate it myself - please go to ] for input. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
::You should of course note that ] also applies to talk pages, so please refrain from labelling BLP subjects "extremist" unnecessarily. The issue can be perfectly well discussed without that. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC) | ::You should of course note that ] also applies to talk pages, so please refrain from labelling BLP subjects "extremist" unnecessarily. The issue can be perfectly well discussed without that. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Finally, please remove the claim that I was "edit warring" - I was enforcing BLP policy. By longstanding agreement the text Freakshownerd was edit warring to reinsert was a BLP violation. In addition, Freakshownerd is likely a ] of a banned user, which factored into my decision to block. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC) | ::Finally, please remove the claim that I was "edit warring" - I was enforcing BLP policy. By longstanding agreement the text Freakshownerd was edit warring to reinsert was a BLP violation. In addition, I believe that Freakshownerd is likely a ] of a banned user, which factored into my decision to block. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:28, 22 August 2010
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
Journalism Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Canada Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Fair use rationale for Image:DianeFrancisbookcover.jpg
Image:DianeFrancisbookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The subject's immediate family.
It is very common for[REDACTED] biographies to cite the subject's immediate family. Please stop removing this info. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sourcing
The sources for this article are atrocious: self-published website and blog. Is this indiviudal really notable with reliable third-party sources available? If not, we need an AfD ASAP. Grsz 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- From what little info we have on her, I think the article would meet WP:BIO if we had independent sources on her awards and accomplishments. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- There's a chapter in North to Canada: Men and Women Against the Vietnam War ISBN 0275962113 with details on her emigration from the US to Canada (her husband dodged the draft) and the early parts of her career. Her journalism career is also mentioned in Staying Canadian ISBN 0919688314 with regards to the Quebec Equality Party, and one of her books is used as a source for Richer or Poorer ISBN 1550286102. We need WP:BETTER not deletionism. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Views on Climate Change
Other views have been presented in this article, and yet this particular one is removed, despite being adequately sourced and relevant to a BLP. I've undone the removal. If there is a good reason why her stated views are irrelevant I'm interested in hearing it. Wbehun (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- She was born in 1946. Article was written in 2009. Global warming didn't become a big issue til about 1989 at the earliest. Are you suggesting that she has to kill one of her adult children to express a view on what's best for the planet? You claim to be a lecturer on philosophy - explain this one to me. (And per WP:BLP, do not reinsert the text without discussion concluding.) Rd232 07:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- RD232's rant not withstanding, there doesn't appear to be any policy based objection to the well sourced content. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- That would be WP:NPOV. Her children were undoubtedly conceived some time before climate change became a public issue, and certainly long before the article was written saying the planet would be better off with 1 child per couple. It is unreasonable to effectively accuse a journalist of hypocrisy in the circumstances described - Ethics 101: EPIC FAIL. Rd232 13:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- RD232's rant not withstanding, there doesn't appear to be any policy based objection to the well sourced content. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rd232 had blocked Freakshownerd while edit warring over this issue, and I have strongly encouraged him to reverse his block and continue discussion on this talk page. The content should be included in this BLP -- this is a particularly notable view of this BLP, and it can be very well sourced to her own words in the Fox News interview and even better in her own column: The real inconvenient truth where she states:
A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.
China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.
The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.
- She is an extremist with extremist views, at least on this topic. She owns these views, has written a column about it, given interviews about her views. There is absolutely no reason to keep this information out of her BLP and every reason to include it. However, she is clearly talking about going forward and not killing extra children that are already born. It is unnecessary and harmful to note in the context of this discussion that she has two children -- that is irrelevant to her views about what should be done in the future. Minor4th 19:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- The clear BLP violation was including the view along with the comment about her having 2 children. Whether the view alone is worth including is more debatable (cherrypicking journalists' views is a perennial Misplaced Pages problem), but in view of the circumstances I don't wish to debate it myself - please go to WP:BLPN for input. Thanks. Rd232 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- You should of course note that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages, so please refrain from labelling BLP subjects "extremist" unnecessarily. The issue can be perfectly well discussed without that. Rd232 19:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Finally, please remove the claim that I was "edit warring" - I was enforcing BLP policy. By longstanding agreement the text Freakshownerd was edit warring to reinsert was a BLP violation. In addition, I believe that Freakshownerd is likely a sockpuppet of a banned user, which factored into my decision to block. Rd232 19:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)